The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) challenging an interim maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the CrPC. The Court held that an interim maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month for a wife and two minor children was reasonable given the husband’s monthly salary of ₹86,000, rejecting the argument that the amount was exorbitant or that the wife had independent income.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gurupasad Sangapa Avati, is a supervisor earning ₹86,000 per month. His wife, Apeksha @ Girija, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking interim maintenance for herself and their two minor children, Sanvi (aged 7) and Vrishank (aged 3). The petitioner contested the maintenance claim, arguing that his salary was insufficient to support his aged parents and the respondents, and that his wife had independent rental income.
Key Facts
- The petitioner earns ₹86,000 per month as salary
- Respondent No. 1 (wife) is a housewife with no independent income
- Respondents No. 2 and 3 are minor children aged 7 and 3, respectively
- The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking interim maintenance
- The petitioner argued that his wife had sufficient rental income and that his salary was inadequate to support both his parents and the respondents
Procedural History
- 30.03.2024: Wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli (Crl.Misc.No.123/2024)
- 13.11.2024: The trial court passed an interim order awarding ₹10,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,500 per month to each child, totaling ₹15,000 per month from the date of the petition
- 2025: The petitioner filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) challenging the interim order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the interim maintenance order dated 13.11.2024, contending that the amount was exorbitant and that his wife had independent income.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the interim maintenance award of ₹15,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC was reasonable given the petitioner’s salary of ₹86,000 and his obligation to support his aged parents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner’s salary of ₹86,000 was insufficient to support his aged parents and the respondents
- The wife had independent rental income and was not solely dependent on the petitioner
- The interim maintenance award of ₹15,000 was exorbitant and untenable
For the Respondents
- The interim maintenance award of ₹15,000 for three respondents was meager and justified given the petitioner’s salary
- The petitioner had sufficient income to comply with the order
- The respondents had not challenged the order, implying acceptance of the amount
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the financial circumstances of both parties and the needs of the minor children. It noted that the petitioner’s salary was ₹86,000 per month, while the wife was a housewife with no independent income. The Court observed that the interim maintenance award of ₹15,000 (₹10,000 for the wife and ₹2,500 for each child) was not exorbitant and was justified under Section 125 CrPC, which aims to prevent destitution of dependents.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s obligation to support his family outweighed his argument about supporting his aged parents. It also noted that the petitioner had not provided evidence to substantiate his claim that the wife had independent rental income. The Court relied on the principle that interim maintenance must be reasonable and sufficient to meet the basic needs of the dependents.
"Considering these aspects, the Court is of the view that the interim maintenance of ₹15,000 i.e. ₹10,000 per month to respondent No.1 - wife, ₹2,500 per month to each of respondents No.2 and 3 is not exorbitant to set aside the order in exercise of discretion under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita."
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the interim maintenance order dated 13.11.2024. The petitioner was directed to continue paying ₹15,000 per month (₹10,000 to the wife and ₹2,500 to each child) from the date of the petition (30.03.2024) until further orders. The amount already deposited pursuant to the interim order was to be released to the wife after proper identification.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Maintenance Must Be Reasonable and Justified
- Courts will assess the financial capacity of the husband and the needs of the dependents while determining interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- The obligation to support minor children and a non-earning spouse takes precedence over other financial commitments, such as supporting aged parents
Burden of Proof Lies on the Husband
- The husband must provide concrete evidence to substantiate claims about the wife’s independent income or financial capacity
- Mere assertions without proof are insufficient to challenge an interim maintenance order
Compliance with Court Orders Is Mandatory
- The Court directed that the maintenance amount be deducted directly from the petitioner’s salary and credited to the wife’s account
- Non-compliance with interim orders can lead to dismissal of petitions challenging such orders
