1 2025:CGHC:27430 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 750 of 2025 Smt. Ila Pandey Sharma W/o Saurabh Sharma, Aged About 35 Years R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.), At Present R/o J.P. Vihar, Mangla, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Saurabh Sharma S/o Dilip Kumar Sharma Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Gataura, Tahsil - Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F.S.Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/wife being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.380/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of interim PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:32:19 +0530 2 maintenance and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant/wife as interim maintenance. Thus, this revision has been filed for enhancement of the interim maintenance amount. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant/wife with respondent/husband took place on 01.07.2021 at Govindam Palace Bilaspur under Hindu Custom. After marriage the respondent and his family members started physical and mental cruelty for demand of dowry with the applicant/wife and harassed and used to comments of the gift articles given at the time of marriage by the parents of the applicant. Due to harassment and cruelty the applicant become mentally distress and treatment is going on. The respondent being husband did not make any arrangement for treatment of his wife even harassment was increased day to day due to which the applicant ultimately came to her parental house. The respondent and his family members have stated that unless the applicant will not bring the seven seat car, they will not keep the applicant in the house. The father of the applicant when stated about his inability to provide the 7 seat car, then the respondent and his family members denied to take the applicant with them. Thereafter, the applicant has made a complaint against the respondent and his family member at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bilaspur where the offence for committing cruelty and harassment has been registered. The applicant also filed a case under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent and his family which is pending. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the applicant is the wife of the respondent, and an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the applicant/wife for maintenance, and the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per month has been awarded by learned Family Court to be granted to the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the case of the applicant in proper manner and committed error by awarding meager amount for interim maintenance. It is not disputed fact that the respondent/husband is working as Assistant Manager in Jindal Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. Raigarh where he is earning salary more than Rs. 60,000/- per month at the time of filing of the application in the year 2022 and now his salary has been increased which is more than Rs. 85,000/- per month and he is earning Rs. 7-8 Lakh per year from irrigated agricultural land even he has no liability of other family member as the mother of respondent is residing with her daughter who is also a government servant. Therefore as per above facts of the case the learned Family Court has committed mistake and error while awarding meager amount of interim maintenance to the applicant/wife. Further, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the payment of maintenance amount shall be ordered from date of application. Thus, the impugned order granting meager amount to applicant/wife for interim maintenance is unsustainable and as such the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced by this Hon'ble Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that, as per the bank statement of the respondent/husband, he appears to be a person capable of earning income. He has a moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife. Keeping in view the standard of living of both the parties and the financial condition of the respondent/husband, it seems reasonable for him to give interim maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- (twelve thousand rupees) per month to his wife, the applicant Mrs. Ila Pandey, till the resolution of this matter. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash/modify the impugned order is refused. 8. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this 5 order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/-/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti