1 2025:CGHC:17547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 487 of 2025 Yogesh Sahu S/o Shree Karanlal Sahu Aged About 39 Years Currently Residing At Shiv Park Coloney Amleshwar, Ps Amleshwar, Tehsil Patan District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Smt. Anju Sahu W/o Yogesh Sahu Aged About 37 Years D/o- Sakil Ram Sahu, Permanent R/o- Near Shehnai Palace Shiv Mandir, Bhavani Nagar (Sainath Coloney) Kota, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) .. Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. The petitioner/husband has filed the instant Criminal Revision under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. 1984, against the impugned order dated 27-02-2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Case No. 1263 of 2024, whereby the learned family court has granted an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance in favour of the VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.28 18:29:43 +0530 2 respondent/wife which is payable from the date of filing of the application i.e. 04-10-2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 04-03-2024 as per their rights and rituals. After the marriage, the respondent/wife started residing in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that after about 15 days of their marriage, the petitioner/husband started harassing his wife, and he became addicted to consuming Bhang. He used to beat her, and his behaviour towards her was not good. Their matrimonial tie started deteriorating and ultimately, the respondent/wife started residing separately under the compelling circumstances. Despite efforts made by her, the behaviour of the petitioner/husband was not corrected and presently she is residing with her parents. 3. On 04-10-2024, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, for grant of maintenance amount from her husband and claimed Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance. In the application, she averred that she does not have any source of her income and is dependent upon her parents. The petitioner/husband has sufficient income and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month from his employment. Along with the application for maintenance, another application for grant of interim maintenance to the respondent/wife has also been filed by her. 3 4. The application of the respondent/wife was replied by the petitioner/husband and he submitted that the respondent/wife herself does not want to live with him, as he is a low-paid employee in a private institution. He never treated her with cruelty and not in any addiction. The respondent/wife has resided only for 15 days with him and was not obliged to the marital relationship, and her behaviour towards the petitioner/husband and his family members was not good. She wanted to live in her own style and had not given any heed to any suggestions given to her in her family. The respondent/wife is working as a computer operator at Medical College Hospital, Raipur, and earning Rs. 13,500/- per month, which is sufficient for her. The petitioner/husband is a salesman of Rite-on Pen and hardly earns his salary of Rs. 22,500/-. He is having the responsibility of his old aged parents and younger brothers and sisters. The respondent/wife is residing separately without any sufficient cause and has her own source of income, she is not entitled to maintenance amount. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned family court has passed the order on 27-02-2025 and granted Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance amount to the respondent/wife, which is payable from the date of the application. The order dated 27-02-2025 is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/wife had resided with the petitioner/husband only for about 15 days, and she, on her own will, left the company of her 4 husband and is residing with her parents without any sufficient cause. During her stay with the petitioner/husband in her matrimonial house, her behaviour was not good, and she had no interest in maintaining the marital relationship. Despite his efforts, she has not come back with him. The respondent/wife is residing separately without any reason, and she is earning Rs. 13,500/- per month from the job of computer operator at Medical College Hospital, Raipur, and is not in need of any interim maintenance. The petitioner/husband is a low-paid employee working in a private institution, having the liability of his elderly parents and younger brothers and sisters. The learned family court, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner/husband, granted interim maintenance, which is liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. The present revision is being filed against the order of grant of interim maintenance amount and final adjudication of the case is still pending before the learned family court. After considering the status of the parties, liability upon the petitioner/husband, requirement of day-to-day expenses as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned family court awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, from the date of application i.e. 04-10-2024. The allegation and counter-allegation of harassment, income of the parties, requirement of day-to-day expenses and also the liability 5 upon the parties, are to be decided by the learned family court after due appreciation of evidence, which is to be led during the trial. The quantum of maintenance always lies with the discretion of the learned family court, and the said discretion cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown as arbitrary or capricious. 9. Referring to the case of “Rajnesh v. Neha”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that interim maintenance should be awarded based on financial capacity, reasonable needs, and standard of living, cautioning against relying on unproven claims of income by either party. 10. A three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vimala(K) Vs Veeraswami, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375, in para-3 of its judgment held that; “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Xxxxxxx” 11. In case of Chaturbhuj Vs Sitabai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-6 of its judgment, has held that: “6. The object xxxxxxxxxx Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls 6 within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503).” 12. At this stage, any observation made by this Court in the entitlement or quantum of interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court may prejudice the ultimate outcome of the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent/wife. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents available in the present revision petition, and also the above mentioned proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no infirmity is found in the impugned order, and therefore, present Criminal Revision stands dismissed. However, learned Family Court, Raipur is directed to make its earnest endeavour to conclude the trial of the case as early as possible. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved