1 2025:CGHC:30315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 731 of 2025 Saurabh Kumar Dubey S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajeev Nagar, Near Keju Rice Mill, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Nisha Sharma W/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey, D/o Late Shri Janardhan Prasad Sharma Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Arjuni Bazar Chowk, Village - Arjuni, Police Station - Bhatapara (Village), District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Shivansh Sharma (Minor) S/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Nisha Sharma, W/o Saurabh Kumar Dubey, Resident Of Arjuni Bazar Chowk, Village - Arjuni, Police Station - Bhatapara (Village), District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. M.C.C. No487/2025, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and directed the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.05 11:40:32 +0530 2 applicant/husband to pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife/respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to his son/respondent No.2 (total Rs. 12,000/-) from the date of application. Hence, this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife, married on 10.12.2020, according to Hindu rites. After marriage, the respondents went to her matrimonial home in Durg and the couple had a son, Shivansh, aged 2. Initially, everything was fine, but the respondent's behavior changed, becoming aggressive and abusive towards the applicant and his parents. She took away ornaments and gifts and left for her parental home in 2021. Despite the applicant's efforts to reconcile, she continued her aggressive behavior, even during his illness (kidney problems and dialysis). On 16.11.2022, she left her matrimonial home and has been living with her parents since. The applicant exhausted from mental harassment, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18.09.2024. In response, the respondent filed an application under Section 144 BNSS seeking maintenance for herself and their child, along with an interim maintenance application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the Family Court failed to consider the applicant's denial of allegations and his affidavit stating no source of income and undergoing kidney transplant. The Family Court granted interim maintenance without properly considering the applicant's objections and without substantial proof of his income. The Family Court overlooked the fact that the wife left the applicant without justification and is residing with her parents, and that the applicant is dependent on his aged parents due to his health condition. The Family Court erred in awarding interim maintenance from the date of application 3 despite a transfer petition being pending. The applicant claims that the Court's order has caused serious prejudice and incomplete justice. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 5. From perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned order, it transpires that prima-facie, the respondents are the wife and son of the applicant, whose maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant. Further, keeping in view the needs of the respondents etc., it is appropriate that at this stage, the applicant is directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- as an interim maintenance to his wife/respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to his son/respondent No.2 (total Rs. 12,000/-) from the date of application/- from the date of application. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti