Allahabad High Court

ANSHUL KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The High Court upheld the Family Court's interim maintenance order and dismissed the revision.

Summary

The revisionist, Anshul Kushwaha, appealed a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000 per month to his wife and Rs.4,000 to their minor daughter under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. The revisionist argued that the marriage had broken down, he earned only Rs.10,000 a month as a driver, and the wife had no legitimate claim. The wife contended that she was abandoned, had no income, and the husband earned Rs.2 lakh per month from various businesses, making him capable of paying maintenance. The trial court had relied on the revisionist’s own statements about his substantial income and ordered maintenance. The High Court, citing Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, held that interim orders are based on affidavits and should not be interfered with before a full evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision, leaving the interim maintenance order in force.

Issues considered

Whether the interim maintenance order under Section 144 B.N.S.S. should be set aside on the basis of the revisionist's claim of low income.
Whether the High Court can interfere with a Family Court's interim maintenance order before the final determination of evidence.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 144

Subjects

interim maintenance
Section 144
family law
revision
Hindu marriage
dowry
income disclosure
high court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8976 of 2025

Anshul Kushwaha
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Agam Prakash Satsangi, Chetan Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 and AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision is being preferred against the judgment and
order dated 18.11.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jhansi, in Case No.990 of 2025 (Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul
Kushwaha), u/s 144 BNSS, by which the revisionist was directed to pay
Rs.8000/- per month to the opposite party no.2/wife and Rs.4000/- per
month to the opposite party no.3/minor daughter, as interim maintenance,
from the date of application i.e. 16.10.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and opposite party no.2 had been solemnized on 05.02.2022
according to Hindu rites and ritual without any dowry. The opposite party
no.2 is a woman of independent thinking who always humiliated the
revisionist and his family using filthy language on the petty issues. On
11.06.2023, opposite party no.2 went to her parental house with her father to
participate in a birth day program of her nephew taking her valuable clothes
and ornaments and she never come back to the revisionist's house. Opposite
party no.2 is living separately without any reasonable ground at her own
sweet will, thus she is not entitled for maintenance.
CRLR No. 8976 of 2025
2

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the opposite party
no.2 filed the false and concocted case under section 144 B.N.S.S. against
the revisionist on 14.07.2025 which was registered as Case No.990 of 2025
(Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul Kushwaha) before the learned
Principal Judge Family Court, Jhansi. He further submits that opposite party
no.2 earns Rs.35,000/- monthly from giving private tutions. It is further
contended that at the time of marriage, the opposite party no.2's father took
seven lakh rupees from his father and took out a loan of three and a half lakh
rupees to purchase a car in his name. Revisionist works as a driver, earning
Rs10,000/- per month by driving a four-wheel-drive loading vehicle and
paying a car installment of Rs.6,250/-, thus he is unable to grant interim
maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and 3.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3
submits that the revisionist harassed the opposite party no.2 and expelled her
from the house demanding additional dowry. The revisionist is not providing
any maintenance for her or her child and the opposite party no.2 has no
source of income and is unable to support herself and her child. The
revisionist owns Mohan Tent House, Mohan Hardware, a cement shop, and
two four-wheeler small vehicles, Mangalam Marriage Hall, located in Jhansi
and Lalitpur. The revisionist earns an income of Rs.2 lakh per month and is
fully capable of maintaining the opposite party no.2 and 3.

6. Perusal of the impugned order of learned trial court shows that the
application under section 144 BNSS for granting of interim maintenance was
allowed primarily on the ground that according to the revisionist's own
statements indicate that he has a substantial income, that is why he maintains
the car. The revisionist is concealing his income. The revisionist has not
stated in his affidavit of assets and liabilities that he has anyone other than
the opposite party nos.2 and 3 as dependents. Therefore, the revisionist is
responsible for supporting the livelihood of opposite party nos.2 and 3.

7. Perusal of record further shows that the order dated 18.11.2025 is an order
of interim maintenance, which has not attained finality. The Hon'ble
CRLR No. 8976 of 2025
3

Supreme Court in the case of Shalu Ojha Vs. Prashant Ojha (2018) 8 SCC
452, held that in case of interim application, the court arrived at the figure of
maintenance on the basis of the affidavits filed by both the parties along with
their respective documents and it is only after the evidence is led by the
parties, the veracity and evidentiary value of such material can be finally
adjudged more particularly, when the said material and assertions of the
parties would be tested with their cross-examination. It is further being
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that under a
legislation meant for protecting the rights of the women the High Court
should be slow in granting interim orders, interfering with the order by
which interim maintenance is granted to opposite party no.2/wife. Since the
present order under challenge is an interim order and the finality of the case
is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties,
therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial
court concerned.

8. The revisionist has every opportunity to file evidence regarding his source
of income and other movable and immovable assets and the same has to be
decided by the learned trial court concerned finally on basis of documentary
and oral evidence, therefore, no interference is required by this Court.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
dated 18.11.2025, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi,
in Case No.990 of 2025 (Smt. Rekha Rani and others Vs. Anshul
Kushwaha), u/s 144 BNSS, needs no interference by this Court and the
present revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
May 12, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…