[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Khare vs Smt Shweta Khare on 23 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1452 of 2025
ASHISH KHARE
Versus
SMT SHWETA KHARE AND OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.R. Soni and Shri MM Tripathi - Advocate for respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 10.02.2026
ORDER PASSED ON : 23.02.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present criminal revision has been filed under Section
438/442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred as BNSS) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against the
order dated 20.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Gwalior in MJCR No.373/2022 awarding interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.1, wife and
Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2, minor son ( total Rs. 25,000/-
per month) from the date of filing of application under Section 125
CrPC i.e. 21.06.2022.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an
application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C along with application for
interim maintenance alleging therein that the marriage of respondent
no.1 and petitioner herein was solemnized on 27.02.2009 as per hindu
rights, rituals and customs at Gwalior. Out of the wedlock the
respondent no.2 was born who is residing with the respondent no.1 at
present. Soon after marriage, the respondent no.1 was subjected to
dowry demands and cruelty by the petitioner and his family. There was
persistent demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- and a flat out of her father's
property. Despite birth of a son on 30.05.2011, the behaviour of the
petitioner did not change and on 10.05.2022 she was finally driven out
from the in-laws house at Bhopal along with her minor child on the
issue of non-fulfilment of dowry demands. The respondent no.1
asserted that she has no independent income and claimed Rs. 25,000/-
per month for herself and Rs. 25,000/- per month for her son.
3. The petitioner herein filed the reply and denied the allegations of
dowry and cruelty. According to the petitioner respondent no.1 is
hyper-tempered and quarrelsome and she ultimately left the
matrimonial home on her own volition along with the child. It was also
contended by the petitioner that the respondent no.1 is well qualified,
runs tuition classes earning Rs.40,000-50,000/- per month and is
capable of maintaining herself. The petitioner further stated that he is a
Software Engineer presently earning about Rs.60,000/- per month, has
to support his aged parents, pay school fees of the son and is also
paying housing loan EMI of about Rs. 18,912/- per month for a flat
purchased in the name of respondent No.1.
4. After considering the application and affidavit filed of assets,
income and liabilities, the Family Court determined the monthly
income of the petitioner as Rs.60,000/- and granted interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to respondent no.1 and Rs.5,000/- to
respondent no.2 from the date of filing of application under Section 125
CrPC i.e. 21.06.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the order of interim
maintenance, the present revision has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent
no.1 left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and despite
his bonafide efforts, she is refusing to resume cohabitation. Hence,
Section 125(4) CrPC bars her claim of any maintenance. Learned
counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1 is well qualified and
earns substantial income from private tuitions and is therefore capable
of maintaining herself, but the learned Family Court has ignored the
said fact. Learned Family Court has mechanically fixed interim
maintenance at Rs. 25,000/ per month without properly considering the
income tax returns of the petitioner, his liabilities including the housing
loan EMI and the needs of his aged parents. The amount awarded by
the learned Family Court as interim maintenance is wholly
disproportionate to his net income. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also relies on I.A. No.25078/2025 accompanying bank statement to say
that during the period covered by the impugned order, the petitioner has
already transferred Rs. 13,33,000/ to the wife, which, in his submission,
exceeds the amount legally payable, resulting not in arrears but in an
excess payment of about Rs.3,33,000/.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and submitted that the allegations of cruelty and dowry
demand have been consistently pleaded. Prima facie, respondent no.1
was justified in living separately and at this interim stage it cannot be
held that she has refused to live with the husband "without sufficient
reason" so as to attract the bar under Section 125(4) CrPC. The plea of
the petitioner that she is earning Rs. 40,000-50,000/- per month from
tuitions is bald and unsubstantiated. Even if she earns some small
amount that by itself does not dis-entitle her for maintenance,
particularly when her standard of living in the matrimonial home was
much higher.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that
petitioner's ITR for AY 2023-24 shows total income of Rs.11,34,110/-,
thus demonstrating substantial earning capacity and belies his plea of
extreme financial hardship. As regards payments of Rs.13,33,000/-, as
stated by the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents relied upon
reply to the I.A. No.25078/2025, points out that a sum of Rs.
10,40,000/- out of the said figure cannot be treated as maintenance, as it
consists of Rs. 10,00,000/- routed through her account to the vendors of
the Bhopal flat, and Rs.90,000/- which was transferred via UPI from
her account back to the petitioner's account. The remaining Rs.
50,000/- was deposited in execution. It is, thus, urged that there is
neither excess payment nor any perversity in the impugned order, and
no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction.
8. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. It is settled in law that scope of interference in revision against
the order of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC is limited.
Section 125 CrPC being a piece of social welfare legislation, orders
granting maintenance should not be lightly interfered with unless they
are unconscionable or unsupported by any material. For passing the
order of interim maintenance, the Court is required to make an
objective assessment of approximate amount to be awarded towards
maintenance on the basis of the pleadings filed by both the parties and
the affidavit of disclosure.
10. Only question involved in the present revision is whether the
learned Family Court has committed any error, perversity, arbitrariness
or order can be said as contrary to any settled provision of law.
11. In the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha reported in 2021(2) SCC 324,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that on the basis of the pleadings filed
by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the Court would be in
a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount
to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage.".
12. So far as the assessment of monthly income of the petitioner as
Rs.60,000/- is concerned, the learned Family Court has determined the
said income of the petitioner considering the affidavit filed by the
petitioner himself, wherein he specifically mentioned that he is earning
Rs.60,000/- per month as Software Engineer in SFA Software
Company. As the monthly income of the petitioner has been assessed on
the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself, therefore,
assessment of the said income cannot be said as contrary to record.
13. The petitioner has also stated that the respondent no.1 is earning
Rs.40,000-50,000/- per month from tuitions, but the same is not
supported by any reliable material such as bank entries, ITRs or fee
receipts. In absence of any material, documentary evidence, the finding
recorded by the learned Family Court in respect of earning of the
respondent no.1 cannot be said as bad in law at this stage of the case.
14. The contention of the petitioner that he is also having liability to
maintain his old parents also cannot be taken into consideration at this
stage because the affidavit filed by the petitioner with regard to
disclosure of assets and liabilities, the petitioner has not mentioned
name of any person who is dependent upon him. So far as the payment
of EMI is concerned, the said voluntary financial commitment does not
reduce the "free income" considered for maintenance assessment.
15. As regards the alleged payments of Rs. 13,33,000/, there are
serious factual disputes, i.e whether the entry of Rs. 10,00,000/ dated
25.11.2023 was in reality consideration for purchase of the Bhopal flat
merely routed through respondent No.1's account, as suggested by the
subsequent cheques and cash withdrawal in favour of the vendors.
Whether the four UPI debits aggregating to Rs. 90,000/ were
transactions in which those sums were immediately transferred back to
another account of the petitioner and what is the precise character of
the payment of Rs. 50,000/ made on 06.11.2025 in execution
proceedings. These questions are essentially factual and can more
appropriately be determined on the basis of evidence produced in trial
before the Family Court.
16. The learned Trial Court by the impugned order granted interim
maintenance pending final adjudication of the main application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. As the interim maintenance order is not a final
determination of the rights and obligation of the parties, the same may
always be subjected to modification by the learned Trial Court based on
further evidence and material that may come on record during the trial.
For passing the order of interim maintenance, the Court is required to
form only a prima-facie opinion based on limited pleading and
affidavits filed. Any interference by this Court, at this stage, in the
interim maintenance would effectively amount to a pre-determination
of the issues that are required to be adjudicated by the Family Court in
the final proceedings.
17. The learned Family Court, while conducting the final
proceedings, will have ample opportunity to examine all these aspects
in detail, summon relevant documents, cross- examine witnesses, and
determine the actual income and financial capacity of the parties. If the
petitioner can establish before the Trial Court that the Respondent no.1
has suppressed facts or concealed anything like her true income and bar
to claim maintenance u/s 125(4) of Cr.P.C, the Trial Court will be well
within its jurisdiction to take an adverse inference against the
Respondent no.1. Thus, This Court finds that the learned Trial Court
has exercised its discretion judiciously in granting interim maintenance
based on the material available on record at the interim stage. The order
dated 20.01.2025 cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to
any settled principles of law.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated
20.01.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior for payment of interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month
to respondent no.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.2-
son is hereby affirmed.
19. Since the matter is pending since 2022, therefore, looking to the
same the learned Family Court is directed to expedite the proceedings
in MJCR No.373/2022 and make all endeavors to dispose of the main
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of this order, in accordance with law.
20. It is made clear that all observations made in this order are
limited to the disposal of the present revision petition and shall not
prejudice the rights of either party in the final adjudication of the main
application pending before the Family Court.
21. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby disposed of
with the above observations and directions.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
chandni* JUDGE
CHAN Digitally signed by CHANDNI
DNI
NARWARIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94b5abcc1b4
614d98feabd8b78228e0ec6eab9a0bd4
e622c09, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
NARW
PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID -
7022823, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa43d19976f
07886865f6fac4a246eee6bccd256acdfc
e3dcf944f, cn=CHANDNI NARWARIYA
ARIYA
Date: 2026.02.23 17:33:05 +05'30'
