1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/55/2026 Ismail Middya Vs. Azmina Begum and Ors. Mr. Ananda Halder … for the petitioner September 23, 2026 [AKB] Item No. 3 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The instant criminal revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner/husband assailing the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Port Blair, in connection with Misc. Case No. 19 of 2025. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court directed the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month each to respondent No.1/wife, respondent No.2/daughter and respondent No.3/son. 4. Upon consideration of the materials available on record, it appears that the relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. It is also apparent from the materials on record that respondent No.1/wife is a homemaker and there is no material before the Court to indicate that she has any independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner and are likewise 2 dependent upon their parents for their maintenance and day- to-day necessities. 5. It further appears that there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner has been regularly providing any amount towards the maintenance and support of his wife and children. Wife is engaged in managing the household and there is no material showing that she possesses sufficient means to maintain herself and the children. 6. The object of an order of interim maintenance is to ensure that the wife and dependent children are not left without reasonable financial support during the pendency of the proceeding. Such an order is essentially intended to meet their immediate and basic needs and to prevent them from being subjected to financial hardship. At the same time, the amount of maintenance must bear a reasonable relationship to the circumstances and means of the parties. 7. In the present case, upon consideration of the materials placed before it, the learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- each in favour of respondent No.1/wife, respondent No.2/daughter and respondent No.3/son. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that, while arriving at the said quantum, the learned Trial Court acted upon any irrelevant consideration or ignored any material circumstance having a bearing on the question of interim maintenance. The quantum awarded also does not, on the materials presently 3 available, disclose any apparent perversity or manifest excess warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 8. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, is not required to substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible. Interference would be justified only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. On a careful examination of the impugned order and the materials on record, no such infirmity is discernible. 9. Having regard to the relationship between the parties, the absence of any demonstrated independent income of the wife, the needs of the wife and the children, and the absence of any material showing that the petitioner has been regularly extending financial support to them, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Family Court. 10. Accordingly, I find no material illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.07.2026 so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 11. The instant criminal revisional application is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The impugned Order No.8 dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Port Blair, in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2025, directing the petitioner to pay interim 4 maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, is hereby affirmed. 13. Interim order, if any stands vacated. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court immediately. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties upon payment of requisite fees. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )