1 2025:CGHC:28596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 773 of 2025 Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Satish Kumar Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o M.I.G., 1/896 H.U.D.C.O. Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Late Salik Ram Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o 2/17 And 18, Near Slater House, Behind Police Station - Supela, New Krishna Nagar, Supela Bhilai, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.30 10:59:30 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and set aside the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure A- 1) and fix an amount of interim maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant has preferred the instant revision against the order dated 09/04/2025, whereby the learned Family Court dismissed the application for grant of interim maintenance to the applicant. The applicant had filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month, and an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses. The respondent filed a counter-reply to the application under Section 144 of the BNSS. Both the applicant and the respondent filed their details of property in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Others. 5. The learned Family Court, after perusing the application, reply, and other documents submitted before it, dismissed the application for grant of interim maintenance on the ground that the applicant had filed the application for maintenance after about 22 years of separation from the respondent and had not clearly stated the reasons necessitating the filing of the application for interim maintenance. Further, the learned Family Court considered the 3 applicant’s statement that she was previously in government service but is now unemployed and has no source of income; however, the applicant did not clearly mention the tenure of her government service or the reasons for her present unemployment. As the applicant was earlier employed in government service, the learned Family Court presumed that the applicant presently has sufficient means to sustain herself. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, improper, and unreasonable. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and it was the respondent who had earlier preferred an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for judicial separation. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2000, and from their wedlock, one male child was born in the year 2001. He submits that in the year 2002, the applicant and her son were thrown out of the house by the respondent and his mother. Thereafter, in the year 2007, the applicant secured a government job as a Patwari with a salary of approximately Rs. 5,500/- per month. In the year 2010, the applicant was implicated in a case, and at that time, her salary was approximately Rs. 7,000/- per month. Further, in the year 2012, the matter was presented before the Court, and during her suspension, the applicant received a salary of approximately Rs. 9,000/- per month. He further submits that in the year 2015, the applicant rejoined her service and was receiving half salary. During the 4 pendency of the criminal case, the applicant worked from 2015 to 2019, and after the decision of the criminal case in 2019, the applicant was terminated. During this period, her salary was approximately Rs. 17,000-20,000/- per month. Since 2019, the applicant has been unemployed and has the responsibility of taking care of her father and son. It is submitted that from 2011 to 2018, the applicant bore the medical expenses and treatment costs of her father, who is a heart patient. The applicant has also looked after the education and other needs of her son after her termination from service, as well as her personal expenses for survival. He also submits that the applicant has been unemployed since July 2019, and during this period, she has spent all her savings on her son’s college education. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has dismissed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the applicant observing that the applicant filed an application for maintenance in the year 2024. Thus, it was evident that the applicant filed the maintenance application nearly 22 years after she lived separately from the respondent. The applicant did not clearly explain what circumstances arose after 22 years of separation that necessitated the filing of an application for interim maintenance. The applicant 5 stated that she was previously employed in a government job but was then completely unemployed and had no source of income. However, the applicant did not clearly mention the period during which she was in government service and the reasons for her unemployment. Since the applicant was previously in government service, it was presumed that she had limited resources available to meet her essential needs. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash / modify the impugned order is refused. 11. 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 Cr.P.C., preferably within a period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek