The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC operates independently of concurrent divorce proceedings or the wife’s temporary employment status. This ruling clarifies a recurring confusion in family courts where husbands challenge maintenance orders on grounds of the wife’s alleged financial independence, often citing post-filing employment or separate maintenance awards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revision petitioner, Chetan Sahu, and the respondent, Smt. Mihka Sahu, were married on 20.04.2022 at Khilchipur, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh. The marriage remains subsisting. On 10.01.2025, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973, seeking interim maintenance, alleging cruelty, neglect of maintenance, and her inability to support herself despite the husband’s sufficient means.
Key Facts
- The husband was previously employed as a Software Engineer in Pune with a monthly income of Rs. 1,00,000.
- He claimed to have been unemployed for the past seven months at the time of the hearing.
- The wife submitted an affidavit dated 07.12.2025 (Annexure-P/2) disclosing that she was employed on a temporary basis with Shankar Nutricom Private Limited, earning Rs. 19,000 per month.
- She was also receiving Rs. 2,500 per month as interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13.
- The Family Court, Indore, passed an order on 29.12.2025 directing the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as interim maintenance, effective from 10.01.2025.
Procedural History
- 20.04.2022: Marriage solemnized at Khilchipur, Rajgarh (MP)
- 10.01.2025: Wife files application under Section 125 CrPC for interim maintenance
- 07.12.2025: Wife submits affidavit disclosing temporary employment and Rs. 19,000 monthly income
- 29.12.2025: Family Court grants Rs. 10,000/month interim maintenance
- 12.03.2026: Revision petition filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Family Court’s order dated 29.12.2025, arguing that the wife’s employment and receipt of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act rendered her ineligible for Section 125 CrPC maintenance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a wife’s temporary employment or receipt of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, disqualifies her from claiming interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the wife’s affidavit disclosing employment at Rs. 19,000 per month and receipt of Rs. 2,500 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act demonstrated sufficient means to support herself. He relied on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, arguing that the wife’s financial capacity negated the need for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. He further asserted that the Family Court failed to consider the wife’s actual earning capacity and that the maintenance order was unjustified.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent maintained that temporary employment does not equate to financial security or stability. She argued that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision designed to prevent destitution, and that even modest earnings do not negate the husband’s statutory obligation. She emphasized that maintenance under Section 24 is incidental to divorce proceedings and cannot override the independent right to interim maintenance under CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a provision of social justice, intended to ensure that a spouse who is unable to maintain herself is not left destitute. The Court noted that the wife’s employment was temporary and her income, while present, was not indicative of long-term financial security. The Court further held that the maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is distinct and does not extinguish the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
"Any amount received for contesting the divorce petition shall not have any bearing on the amount awarded in the proceedings for interim maintenance."
The Court emphasized that revision petitions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act are not meant to re-appreciate evidence or adjudicate contested factual disputes. Such issues must be resolved after full trial and recording of evidence. The Family Court’s order was based on a practical assessment of the wife’s immediate need and the husband’s prior earning capacity, which remained relevant despite his current unemployment claim.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Rajnesh v. Neha, noting that the case dealt with final maintenance in divorce proceedings, not interim maintenance under CrPC. The two remedies serve different purposes and operate in different procedural frameworks.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Family Court’s order dated 29.12.2025 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 per month as interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, effective from 10.01.2025, was upheld. The Court clarified that the wife’s temporary employment and receipt of Rs. 2,500 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act do not disentitle her to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Maintenance Under CrPC Is Independent of Other Proceedings
- Practitioners must argue that Section 125 CrPC maintenance is not contingent on concurrent divorce proceedings or maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Courts must treat Section 125 applications as standalone remedies for immediate subsistence, irrespective of other claims.
Temporary Employment Does Not Bar Maintenance
- A wife’s temporary or part-time employment, even if documented, cannot be used to deny interim maintenance unless her income is stable, substantial, and sufficient to meet her basic needs.
- The burden remains on the husband to prove that the wife has adequate means - not merely some income.
Revision Courts Must Not Re-Try Facts
- Revision petitions under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act are not appeals. Courts must not re-evaluate evidence or substitute their opinion on income or need.
- Only patent illegality or jurisdictional error justifies interference.
