[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Jain vs Smt Priyanla Nadiya on 23 March, 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. 201 of 2026
HEMANT JAIN
Versus
SMT PRIYANLA NADIYA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Hemant Jain- Petitioner present in person.
Shri Anmol Khedkar, - Advocate for the respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER RESERVED ON : 17.03.2026
ORDER PASSED ON : 23/03/2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed u/s 438 and 442 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
BNSS) r/w Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order
dated 16.12.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gwalior in MJCR No.879/2024, whereby interim maintenance of
Rs.5000/- per months was awarded to the respondent/wife.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed an
application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C (now Section 144 of BNSS) seeking
maintenance along with an application for interim maintenance. The
learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2025 granted interim
maintenance of Rs.5000/- pm to the respondent from the date of the
application. The said order is under challenge in the present revision.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned Trial Court has
passed the order without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and the order was passed without proper marshalling of
documents available on record. The respondent is maintaining a car and
two-wheeler and hence cannot be said to have no source of income. The
petitioner further contended that it was the respondent and her family
who subjected the petitioner to demands.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that the
respondent/wife has no source of income and is entirely dependent on
her retired father. The petitioner is engaged in RO sales and servicing
business earning substantial income, therefore, the impugned order
granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month is just,
reasonable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is well-settled in law that interim maintenance is a temporary
measure granted pending final adjudication of the main application
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C./Section 144 BNSS. The purpose of
interim maintenance is to ensure that the applicant is not left without
means of sustenance during the pendency of the proceedings.
8. For passing the order of interim maintenance, the Court is
required to form only a prima facie opinion based on the limited
material available at that stage. Any interference by this Court, at this
stage, in setting aside or modifying the interim maintenance would
effectively amount to a pre-determination of the issues that are required
to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in the final proceedings.
9. This Court has carefully considered the impugned order dated
16.12.2025. The learned Trial Court, while granting interim
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month, has duly considered the material
placed before it. It is an undisputed and admitted fact that the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
23.05.2024, and that the respondent wife is presently residing
separately. The respondent has claimed that she has no independent
source of income and is entirely dependent on her retired father. The
petitioner, in his own affidavit, has disclosed that he is engaged in
private work, though he has not specified the exact income therefrom.
The learned Trial Court, drawing a prima facie inference based on the
available material, has taken a pragmatic view that even if the income
of Rs. 20,000/- per month, as conceded by the petitioner, is accepted, a
reasonable estimate for the purpose of interim maintenance could be
made. The grant of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance on
such a prima facie assessment cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary,
or contrary to any settled principle of law.
10. The grievances raised by the petitioner, such as the respondent
owning and maintaining vehicles, the alleged suppression of the prior
divorce decree, the circumstances under which the respondent left the
matrimonial home, and the detailed computation of the petitioner's
income and obligations, are all matters that require detailed
examination of evidence during the trial of the main application. It
would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate upon these
contested factual disputes at the interim stage. If this Court interfere
with the interim order at this stage, it would prejudice the final
adjudication by the Trial Court.
11. The Trial 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, financial capacity, and conduct of both parties. If the petitioner
can establish before the Trial Court that the respondent has independent
source of income, she left the matrimonial home without sufficient
cause, or that there are other valid grounds to deny or reduce
maintenance, the Trial Court will be well within its jurisdiction to take
appropriate cognizance of the same in the final order. Thus, this Court
finds that the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously
in granting interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the
respondent, based on the material available on record at the interim
stage. The impugned order dated 16.12.2025 cannot be said to be
perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to any settled principles of law.
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find
any merit in the present revision. The revision petition is accordingly
hereby dismissed.
13. 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 Trial Court.
14. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate all his grievances regarding
the respondent's alleged independent income, ownership of vehicles,
the circumstances of separation, and any other relevant aspects before
the learned Trial Court during the trial of the main application.
(PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
chandni* JUDGE
CHAN
DNI
2.5.4.20=4a0af498d89b2d94
b5abcc1b4614d98feabd8b78
228e0ec6eab9a0bd4e622c09
, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
NARW
AT GWALIOR,CID - 7022823,
postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8c306c586aaa
43d19976f07886865f6fac4a2
ARIYA
46eee6bccd256acdfce3dcf94
4f, cn=CHANDNI NARWARIYA
Date: 2026.03.23 17:59:01
+05'30'
