Can a revisional court reduce interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without finding the Family Court's assessment perverse or the amount excessive?

No. The High Court gave no reason for interfering with the Family Court's order other than the fact that the wife also earns; it did not find the assessment perverse, nor the amount excessive, and in fact held the sum sufficient for the two daughters.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 125 — Interim maintenance — Revisional interference — Shared parental obligation — CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Interim maintenance — Revisional interference — Held: A revisional court cannot reduce interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court without a finding that its assessment was perverse or that the amount awarded was excessive; it gave no such finding here. (¶9) CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Shared parental obligation — Non-monetary contribution — Held further: The obligation to maintain children is shared by both parents, but is not divided by arithmetic alone; the wife also earning is not, by itself, ground to halve the father's liability, since her care of the children is a real contribution too. (¶9, 10) CrPC, 1973 — s.125 — Interim order restored — Held further: The High Court's order reducing interim maintenance is set aside and the Family Court's order restored, with arrears payable within three months; the main maintenance petition remains to be decided on its own merits. Appeal allowed. (¶14, 15, 16)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUJATA KUMARI & ORS v. RAHUL KUMAR & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India