IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.968 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vikramditya …….Petitioner Versus Kanchan … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Legal Aid Counsel. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Case No.1172 of 2024, titled as Kanchan Vs. Vikramaditya, whereby petitioner herein came to be directed to pay ad-interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that learned Court below, while granting ad-interim maintenance, failed to take note of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 conduct of the respondent, who, at first instance, of her own volition and without any external pressure, left the matrimonial house and thereafter, despite there being decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights passed by competent Court of law, refused to join the company of the petitioner. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that petitioner herein earns only Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month, as such, it is very difficult for him to sustain himself in case he is required to pay sum of Rs.2,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent, who has otherwise been living separately without any justifiable reason. 3. To the contrary, Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Legal Aid Counsel, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that bare perusal of averments contained in the application filed by the respondent for interim maintenance clearly reveals that she, on account of continuous domestic violence, is compelled to live at her parental house. She submitted that since respondent has no source of income, coupled with the fact that petitioner earns handsomely, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while directing the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the 3 impugned order, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 5. Otherwise also, this Court finds that very purpose and object of granting interim maintenance during the pendency of the main petition, is to ensure that a person seeking such maintenance is not left to starve. 6. Since factum of marriage inter se petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute, coupled with the fact that at present, respondent is living at her parental house on account of matrimonial discord, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while granting monthly interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent, which was otherwise on a very lower side. Conduct of the respondent as well as financial capacity of the petitioner otherwise could not be a ground for the Court below to deny interim maintenance, which is only granted to the respondent to ensure that she is able to sustain herself during the pendency of petition filed by her for maintenance. Even if the stand taken by the petitioner that he earns only Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- is assumed to be correct, sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Court below, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be sufficient for a person to sustain herself in this era, where prices have gone very high. 4 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed, as a result thereof, order impugned in the instant proceedings is upheld, with a direction to learned Court below to decide the main petition, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, maintenance received by the respondent as ad-interim maintenance shall be adjusted in the amount, if any, awarded in the main petition. 8. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before the learned Court below on 04.06.2026, enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time. Needless to say, Court below, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Observation, if any, made in the instant order is only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition and same shall have no bearing on the disposal of the main petition, which shall be decided by the Court below on the basis of totality of evidence as well as pleadings led on record by the parties. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 13, 2026 (sunil)