[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kaptan Singh Kushwah vs Smt. Bharti Kushwah on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5542
1 CRR-357-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 357 of 2026
DR. KAPTAN SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
SMT. BHARTI KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act
r/w Section 438 & 442 of BNS, 2023 is preferred being aggrieved by the
order dated 23.12.2025 in MJC No.1586/2025 by IIIrd Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Indore, whereby an amount of Rs.18,000/- pm has been
awarded in favor of the respondent No.1/wife, Rs.3,000/- pm has been
awarded in favor of respondent No.2/minor son and Rs.2,000/- has been
awarded in favor of respondent No.3/minor daughter as interim maintenance
from the date of filing the application i.e. 16.12.2023.
2. Facts in brief are that the revision petitioner and respondent No.1
was solemnized the marriage on 12.12.2009 and out of the said wedlock,
respondent No.2 and 3 were born who are minor and are studying in the St.
Arnold School at Indore. An application for maintenance was preferred on
16.12.2023 alleging neglect of maintenance, inability to maintain themselves
and sufficiency of means of revision petitioner as he is Bachelor of Dental
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5542
2 CRR-357-2026
Surgery and runs two clinics at Indore; one in Shyam Nagar Sukhliya and
second in Veena Nagar, Indore and earns more than Rupees Two Lacs from
the profession of dentist and earns Rupees Twenty Thousand from the rental
income.
3. The period of separation was stated to have commenced on
15.08.2023, and an application for interim maintenance was also filed. The
application was opposed by filing the reply as (Annexure P/3) and it was
stated that he purchased the house of plot area 20x40 total 800 sq.ft. which is
situated at 82, Saraswati Nagar, Indore for respondent No.1. He is bearing
the expenses of education of respondents No.2 and 3 and they all are living
in his house and there is no need to award interim maintenance.
4. Considering the material on record, the trial Court allowed the
application of interim maintenance partially to the extent as mentioned in
para 1 of the judgment.
5. Challenging the impugned order, this criminal revision has been
preferred.
6. If the husband claims that he is bearing the expenses of the
respondents, he should not oppose the order of interim maintenance, as the
order provides them with a legal right; otherwise, they would be left at his
mercy. Considering the husband's sufficient means and the expenses of the
children, the impugned order is just and proper.
7. The scope of revision in a challenge to the order of interim
maintenance is very limited, as propounded by the Apex Court in the case
o f Malkeet Singh Gill vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5542
3 CRR-357-2026
2024 which is being reproduced as below:-
"10........... the scope of interference in
revision is extremely narrow. The object of
the provision is to set right a patent defect of
an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to
be well-founded error which is to be
determined on the merits of individual case.
It is also well settled that while considering
the same, the Revisional Court does not
dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of
the case to reverse those findings."
8. Considering the above in the above limited scope and the amount of
maintenance, the impugned order does not fit to be interfered with.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
