Dhanraj Ramhari Bele vs Madhuri Bele & Anr.

Heard.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

The applicant has challenged the order below Exh.11 dated 07.05.2026 passed by the learned Family Court No.5, Nagpur, thereby granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2.

The learned counsel Mr. Suchak submits that the aforesaid grant of interim maintenance was granted to the tune of Rs.8,000/- to the non-applicants was made in absolute disregard of the law and in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The order passed by the learned Family Court is without considering the assets and liabilities in affidavit, wherein the wife has admitted earning of Rs.8,000/- per month. The applicant is also earning Rs.8,000/- per month salary and it is therefore difficult for the applicant to pay the amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife and the child by way of interim maintenance.

The learned counsel Mr. Suchak further submitted that the maintenance petition was filed on 02.04.2024 only as a counterblast to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the applicant/husband on 16.08.2023, as the separation was from August 2021. Such belated application for filing maintenance petition is only with an intention to counter the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the applicant. The non-applicant No.1, wife, did not approach the Family Court with clean hands and has suppressed the HDFC Bank account statement. She is maintaining a separate account in HDFC Bank, apart from the HDFC account disclosed in the statement of assets and liabilities. The learned Family Court thus ought to have rejected the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the wife. The quantum of the interim maintenance is exorbitant. The same would cause hardship to the applicant and therefore requires interference of this Hon’ble Court under its revisional jurisdiction.

The learned trial Court has also failed to take into consideration that the applicant is also required to take care of his 75 years old mother, who is suffering from slip disc after a failed surgical operation and his father is 82 years old and requires care and support. The wife is earning, self-sufficiently and is therefore not entitled for maintenance.

The non-applicant wife, on the other hand, is earning good income through her employment. The HDFC Bank account is not disclosed. Monthly amount is received by the non-applicant wife under Ladaki Bahin Yojana and substantial financial support from her pensioner father. Thus, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside.

Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 shows that the applicant has filed his reply vide Exh.14 and strongly opposed the allegations against the applicant. Perusal of the record shows that both the applicant/husband and the non-applicant/wife have leveled several serious allegations against each other and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant has neglected and refused to maintain the non-applicant wife and child, the learned trial Court has directed the applicant to pay the interim maintenance amount.

The learned trial Court has also found that the applicant is shown to be working as an IT instructor with Bharatiya Private Industrial Training Centre of Nagpur, which had supplied the income statement of the applicant, wherein it was informed that the applicant is earning net salary of Rs.8,500/-. The applicant is having agricultural land which is given on ‘theka’. The learned trial Court has also taken into consideration that the applicant owns the agricultural land bearing Survey No.418, Mauza Rajura Bazar and a house property bearing House No.6769/A/150.

The learned trial Court has also considered that though the non-applicant No.2, Devesh, was minor at the time of filing of the application, however, he has become major and is taking education and is suffering from low vision disability for which he is regularly required to take medical treatment. The object of granting maintenance is to ensure that the wife shall not suffer destitution or vagrancy due to the separation. No doubt, the said maintenance shall not be a punishment to the other spouse, however, no straight-jacket formula is applicable while fixing the quantum of maintenance.

The learned trial Court has applied its mind to the fact that the father’s duty to educate his child does not cease merely because the child has turned 18 and that he is still pursuing his education. The child is also having low vision disability. The applicant No.1 is working, however, entire burden of child shall not fall solely on a mother just because the son is adult. The learned Family Court has also considered that the non-applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 is the son begotten out of the said wedlock. Therefore, considering the standard of living of both the parties, the reasonable needs of the applicant and financial status of the family, including the income arising out of the agricultural land, educational expenses of non-applicant No.2 and also with an intention to prevent the wife and the child from destitution, the learned trial Court has held that the non-applicant/wife is entitled for Rs.3,000/- per month maintenance and Rs.5,000/- maintenance to the non-applicant No.2/son.

I find no error or infirmity in the course adopted by the learned trial Court in awarding the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the son. There is no material irregularity committed by the learned Family Court. The impugned order is therefore just and proper and liable to be maintained. The applicant has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The revision is therefore devoid of substance and merit and is hereby dismissed.

Fees of the learned counsel for the applicant be quantified as per the Rules.

Rule is discharged.