2025:CGHC:17991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 503 of 2025 Mohammad Imran S/o Irshad Mohammad Aged About 31 Years R/o- C.G. Pyrotechnics, Karma Chowk, Ramnagar, Kota Road, Raipur, Police Station- Gudhiyari Raipur, (Wrongly Mentioned As Police Station Ramnagar And Police Chowki- Gudhiyari In Impugned Order) Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Shahin Parveen W/o Mohammad Imran Aged About 28 Years R/o Rajatalab, New Basti, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Navin Shukla, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21.04.2025 1. This is the Criminal Revision filed by the applicant /husband, challenging the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District-Raipur, in MJC Case No.219 of 2024, whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted as an interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, payable from the date of application i.e.12.02.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant and respondent in the case are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2023 as per their rites and rituals. After some time of their marriage, dispute arose between Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.04.22 10:48:27 +0530 Crr 503 of 2025 2 the parties, and they were residing separately. Respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raipur, in which application for grant of interim maintenance has also been filed. It is pleaded in the application that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry by the respondent, and his family members, due to which she was compelled to reside separately from her husband. It is also pleaded that the applicant/husband is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from his Crackers Shop, and she is unable to maintain herself, as having no source of income, therefore, an amount of Rs.40,000/- may be granted to her as maintenance, and Rs.25,000/- per month was claimed by her as interim maintenance. 3. Applicant/husband denied the allegations made in the application, and submitted that the conduct of the respondent itself was not good with the applicant, and his family members, since the date of marriage itself. She never give respect to his family members, and wanted to reside separately from his family members, and made allegation that applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty, where there is no such incident ever occurred. It is also submitted that the respondent/wife is an educated lady, and working as teacher in a Coaching Institute, from where, she earns Rs.30-35000/- per month, and able to maintain herself. Therefore, she is not entitled for any interim maintenance. 4. After hearing the parties, learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife, and granted Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which is under challenge in the revision. Crr 503 of 2025 3 5. Present is a case where interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month has been granted to the respondent, and the proceeding of main application is pending before the learned Family Court. The quantum of interim maintenance and entitlement of the maintenance amount is the discretion of learned Family court, based on the material produced before it, and the evidence led by the parties. Any observation made in the quantum of interim maintenance may prejudice the final outcome of the main application, which is to be decided after leading evidence by the parties in their support. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it reflects that learned Family Court, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties, as well as their pleadings, decided the application, and granted interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, in which I do not find any perversity or illegality to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, present Criminal Revision lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma