Smt. Rishika vs. Aditya

Held

The Court held that the scope of revision against an order of interim maintenance is limited, as prima facie findings are subject to proof through evidence. The divorce decree had not attained finality as it was under challenge. Grounds under Section 125(4) and (5) of the Cr.PC are to be decided at the final stage, and the wife's income also needs to be proven. Citing the Supreme Court case of Rajesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court stated that maintenance must be awarded from the date of the application. No illegality was found in the impugned order that warranted interference in favour of either the husband or the wife. Consequently, neither the husband's revision (CRR No. 778/2025) nor the wife's revision (CRR No. 1210/2025) satisfied the Court as being fit for admission. Both revisions were dismissed in limine.

Facts

The case involves two criminal revisions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, arising from an interim maintenance order. Smt. Rishika (wife) was awarded Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application (06.04.2022) by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Indore, on 20.01.2025. The husband, Aditya, an Inspector in the GST Department with a net salary of Rs. 83,190/- in June 2024, had filed for divorce on 12.06.2020, and a decree of divorce was passed on 05.09.2023 on grounds of cruelty and desertion. This decree is currently under challenge in a First Appeal. Aditya filed a revision challenging the interim maintenance, arguing that an FIR against him under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC had been quashed, the divorce decree was granted, and the wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) and (5) of the Cr.PC, nor from the date of application. Rishika also filed a revision seeking enhancement of maintenance to at least Rs. 50,000/- per month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the wife, considering the quashing of the FIR against the husband and the grant of a decree of divorce, and whether such maintenance should be payable from the date of application, as per Section 125(4) and (5) of the Cr.PC? 2. Whether the interim maintenance awarded to the wife is insufficient, and if it ought to be enhanced to at least one-third of the husband's salary (Rs. 50,000/- per month), considering his income from the GST Department? Arguments for the Petitioner (Aditya, husband) in CRR No. 778/2025: The Family Court failed to consider that the FIR under Section 498-A, 323, 506 IPC was quashed by the High Court. It also did not consider the divorce decree granted in his favour, making the wife disentitled to interim maintenance under Section 125(4) and (5) of the Cr.PC. Granting maintenance from the date of application was against the law. The wife also possesses a special education in Travel and Tourism. Arguments for the Petitioner (Rishika, wife) in CRR No. 1210/2025: The interim maintenance awarded was inadequate, and at least one-third of the husband's salary, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- per month, ought to have been awarded, based on his salary slip.