[2026:RJ-JP:13452] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8160/2025 Shivang Sharma S/o Sh. Rakesh Sharma, R/o A-304, Grand Vista, Sirsi Road, Kanakpura, Jaipur, Earlier R/o M-78, Ground Floor, Near Amity International School, Saket, Delhi, At Present R/o M-86, First Floor, Near Amity International School, Saket, New Delhi - 110017. ----Petitioner Versus Medhavi Sharma D/o Sh. Uma Shankar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 80/179, Agarwal Farm, Sector-8, Sfs, Mansarover, Jaipur-302020. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kishore Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Addl. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/03/2026 1. Instant Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-husband against the order dated 16.10.2025, passed by learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Case No.94/2024 (CIS No.230/2024) whereby the learned Judge allowed the interim maintenance application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.22,500/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has committed a grave error in law and on facts by awarding interim maintenance to the tune of ₹22,500/- per month in favour of the respondent–wife, [2026:RJ-JP:13452] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8160/2025] effective from the date of the application. It is further contended that the respondent–wife is a well-educated individual who is gainfully employed with a multinational company and earning approximately ₹49,000/- per month. In light of her independent and sufficient income, she is fully capable of maintaining herself and does not require any financial support from the petitioner. Counsel further argues that the very object of granting maintenance is to provide financial assistance to a spouse who is unable to sustain herself. However, in the present case, the respondent-wife does not fall within this category, as she has a stable source of income. Therefore, the essential condition for grant of maintenance i.e. the inability to maintain herself, is not satisfied in this case. It is further submitted that when the wife is financially independent and capable of self-maintenance, the question of considering the petitioner–husband’s capacity to pay does not arise. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. 3. I have duly considered the submissions made by the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. 4. It is well settled that the liability of the husband to maintain his wife is not absolute and is contingent on various circumstances. The liability is contingent on the overall financial status, earning capacity, and reasonable needs of both parties. The determination of maintenance is to be balanced between the liability of the husband and the right of the wife to live with dignity. However, it is also pertinent to note that the expression “unable to maintain herself” cannot be construed in a narrow or [2026:RJ-JP:13452] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8160/2025] pedantic sense to imply that she should be rendered to a state of vagrancy and destitution before she is entitled to maintenance. The expression “unable to maintain herself” is to be construed in a liberal sense to include instances where, despite her earning capacity, she is not in a position to meet her basic requirements and sustain the lifestyle she was accustomed to during the subsistence of the matrimonial relationship. The fact that she is earning does not disentitle her from making a claim for maintenance; it is only necessary to assess whether she is earning sufficient income to maintain herself. 5. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention that, vide the impugned order, only the application for grant of interim maintenance has been adjudicated. The matter is still in a preliminary stage, and both parties shall have ample opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and contentions before the learned Family Court. It is expected that the learned Family Court shall objectively assess the evidence and material on record and then arrive at a final decision. 6. It may also be clarified that any observation, whether by this Court or the Court below, that may be made in this regard, shall be merely prima facie and confined to the adjudication of interim maintenance only. It shall not, in any manner, affect or influence the final decision of the main case. 7. Accordingly, the Cr. Misc. Petition stands dismissed. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/50