1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/44/2026 Surya Vs. Vaishali and another Ms. A.S.Zinu Ms. Anagha Mambrath Ms. Ananna Biswas … for the petitioner Mr. Arun S. Kumar … for the respondent No.1 September 23, 2026 [AKB] Item No.8 1. The instant criminal revisional application has been preferred at the behest of the petitioner/husband assailing the order dated 03rd July, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Misc. Case No. 1 of 2025. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondent/wife seeking interim maintenance and directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner was further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance in two equal monthly instalments. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner/husband. 4. Ms. A.S. Zinu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and irregularity, principally on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the financial condition and income 2 of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner himself has no regular or sufficient income to comply with the direction for payment of maintenance. According to the learned Advocate, the petitioner is a labourer and his financial circumstances are extremely limited. It is further submitted that the monthly income of the petitioner's father is stated to be about Rs.12,000/-, and the petitioner has no independent financial capacity to pay the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court. On such premise, it is urged that the impugned order be set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Arun S. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. It is contended that, upon consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the prayer for interim maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. It is further submitted that there is no sufficient material on record to demonstrate that the learned Trial Court committed any jurisdictional error or adopted an impermissible approach while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, dismissal of the revisional application has been prayed for. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and have carefully considered the materials placed on record, including the impugned order. 7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent/wife and that the respondent/wife is living separately from the petitioner. There is also no material on record 3 to indicate that the respondent/wife has any independent and sufficient source of income enabling her to maintain herself without financial assistance. In such circumstances, her claim for reasonable interim maintenance requires consideration having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the materials available before the Court. 8. It is equally significant that there is no material on record demonstrating that the petitioner has been regularly providing any amount towards the maintenance of the respondent/wife. The obligation to maintain a wife, subject to the statutory requirements being satisfied, cannot be defeated merely by making a general assertion that the husband has limited income. The Court is required to consider the overall circumstances of the parties, including their respective means, needs and financial obligations. 9. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that he is a labourer and has no sufficient income to pay the maintenance amount has also been considered. However, such assertion, by itself, does not establish that the petitioner is wholly incapable of providing reasonable maintenance to his wife. No cogent material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the petitioner has no earning capacity whatsoever or that the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month fixed by the learned Trial Court is beyond his means. The reference to the income of the petitioner's father also does not, by itself, establish the petitioner's inability to earn or his complete incapacity to maintain his wife. 10. It is also well settled that an order granting interim maintenance is intended to secure reasonable financial support to the claimant during pendency of the proceeding and is not, at that 4 stage, required to finally determine the respective rights and liabilities of the parties. The learned Trial Court, after considering the materials available before it, has exercised its discretion and fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month. 11. Upon an overall consideration of the materials on record, I find that the learned Trial Court has taken into account the relevant circumstances while allowing the prayer for interim maintenance. The amount awarded cannot, on the materials presently available, be said to be so unreasonable or disproportionate as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 12. It is necessary to bear in mind that revisional jurisdiction is not intended to enable this Court to substitute its own assessment for that of the Trial Court merely because another view may be possible. Unless the impugned order is shown to suffer from patent illegality, material irregularity, perversity or an error resulting in miscarriage of justice, interference in revision is not warranted. 13. In the present case, upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon careful examination of the materials available on record, I find no such illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order as would justify interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the instant criminal revisional application is dismissed. 15. The impugned order dated 03rd July, 2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Misc. Case No. 1 of 2025 is hereby affirmed. 16. Stay order if any, stands vacated. 5 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all legal formalities. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )