The High Court has declined to give any relief to husband against whom order for ad interim maintenance was passed by the trial court primarily looking into the marriage photographs which show the status of parties.

A petition was filed by the Respondent/wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. contending that she had to leave the matrimonial home because of harassment and demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner and his family. A car eco-sport was given by the father of the respondent, the car was bought in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that prior to marriage it was represented that petitioner works in a bank, however, subsequently the respondent came to know that petitioner was not employed in any bank but used to work along with his father at his shop. The father of the petitioner is into the business of gold and diamond jewellery. It is contended that on account of the cruel behaviour of the petitioner and his family respondent had to leave the matrimonial home. It was contended that normally in a month for his personal expenditure, petitioner would spend approximately ₹ 1, 25, 000/–. Apart from this he would take ₹ 40,000 from his mother who was receiving monthly rental from her properties of ₹ 3,00,000/–. Monthly maintenance of ₹ 55,000 was claimed by the respondent. The Trial Court by the impugned order assessed ad-interim maintenance at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

When the matter reached the High Court, it observed "The Trial Court has only assessed ad-interim maintenance. Adinterim maintenance is only tentative and subject to fixation of interim or final maintenance. At this stage the trial court has to only form a prima facie opinion. The Trial Court has prima facie looked at the status of the parties. The Trial Court has correctly opined that the photographs of marriage spoke for themselves. Nature of marriage ceremonies speak volumes about the status of parties, their lifestyle and their family. The Trial Court has looked at the photographs of the marriage ceremonies that were produced by the respondent and made an assessment of the status of parties and rightly so".

High Court held "In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and no merit in the petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 16.02.2018 is vacated. Petitioner is however granted six weeks’ time to clear the arrears".