The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that interim maintenance orders under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot be passed without credible evidence of the respondent’s income, reinforcing the principle that financial relief must be grounded in verifiable facts rather than assumptions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a contract employee earning ₹12,000 per month, challenged an interim maintenance order of ₹7,000 per month granted to his minor son, Respondent No.1, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mydukur, Kadapa District. The maintenance was ordered in a criminal proceeding initiated under Section 125 BNSS, which permits maintenance for dependents in cases of neglect or refusal to provide support.
Procedural History
- 2024: Maintenance petition filed by the minor’s mother on his behalf
- 11.06.2025: Trial Court granted interim maintenance of ₹7,000/month without conducting any inquiry into the petitioner’s actual income or expenses
- 06.03.2026: Criminal Revision filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking reduction of the maintenance amount
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought modification of the interim maintenance order, arguing that ₹7,000 exceeded 50% of his monthly income and was unsustainable. The respondent, through counsel, did not contest the petitioner’s income claim but urged the court to direct the trial court to expedite final disposal.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether interim maintenance under Section 125 BNSS can be granted without any documentary or evidentiary basis establishing the petitioner’s income or the child’s actual needs.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the trial court’s order was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice. He cited the petitioner’s salary slip as proof of limited means and contended that awarding ₹7,000 - nearly 60% of his income - was disproportionate and unsustainable. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to assert that judicial orders must be reasoned and based on material on record.
For the Respondent
The counsel for the minor son acknowledged the lack of income proof but emphasized the child’s right to maintenance under Section 125 BNSS. He argued that interim relief is meant to be protective and that the trial court acted within its discretion. He requested only that the matter be decided expeditiously, without challenging the quantum of maintenance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of interim maintenance under Section 125 BNSS and observed that while such orders are meant to provide immediate relief, they cannot be granted in a vacuum. The trial court had not recorded any evidence, nor had it considered the petitioner’s financial capacity or the child’s actual requirements.
"Nothing has been placed before this Court to decide the genuineness of otherwise of the respectively contentions of both parties to believe the income of the Petitioner herein."
The Court emphasized that interim maintenance is not a final adjudication and must be proportionate, reasonable, and based on available facts. It noted that even in urgent proceedings, courts cannot ignore the foundational requirement of evidentiary support. The Court distinguished this from cases where income is undisputed or where the respondent is self-employed with no verifiable records - here, the petitioner had provided a clear salary figure, which the trial court ignored.
The Court further held that while the trial court has discretion, it must exercise it judicially, not mechanically. The absence of inquiry rendered the order unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded in part. The High Court reduced the interim maintenance from ₹7,000 to ₹5,000 per month. It directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously, without being influenced by this order, and preserved the parties’ right to adduce evidence on income and needs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Income Proof Is Mandatory for Interim Maintenance
- Practitioners must now insist on production of salary slips, bank statements, or income tax returns before any interim maintenance is claimed or granted
- Courts cannot rely on generic assumptions about ‘standard of living’ without concrete data
- Failure to produce income evidence may result in reduction or stay of maintenance orders
Interim Relief Must Be Proportionate
- Maintenance exceeding 50% of a salaried person’s income is prima facie excessive unless extraordinary needs are proven
- Courts must balance the child’s welfare with the payer’s ability to sustain the obligation
- This ruling reinforces that interim orders are not permanent and must be revisited with evidence
Trial Courts Must Record Reasoning
- Orders granting interim maintenance must include brief reasoning on how the amount was calculated
- Blanket orders without reference to income or expenses are vulnerable to revision
- Advocates should file applications for production of documents before interim hearings to avoid arbitrary awards
