1 2025:CGHC:26851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 941 of 2023 Bhushan Pratap Patel S/o Shri Krishna Lal Patel, Aged About 36 Years Occupation- Government Servant, R/o Katghora, Village Jurali, Tahsil Podi- Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh At Present Address- T.V. Tower Road, Infront Of Rose Garden, G-13, South Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Asha Patel W/o Bhushan Pratap Patel, D/o Karan Koshaley, Aged About 31 Years R/o Quarter No. 247/1 B.B.H. Colony, Infront Of D.A.M. Office, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Pratiksha Patel, D/o Bhushan Pratap Patel, Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Patel W/o Bhushan Pratap Patel, R/o Quarter No. 247/1 B.B.H. Colony, Infront Of D.A.M. Office, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Ananya Patel, D/o Bhushan Pratap Patel, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Patel W/o Bhushan Pratap Patel, R/o Quarter No. 247/1 B.B.H. Colony, Infront Of D.A.M. Office, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned maintenance order dated 12.04.2023 in respect of direction to pay interim maintenance amount from filing date 22.07.2021 of the application and to issue direction to pay maintenance amount from the date of passing of maintenance order dated 12.04.2023, in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefs facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.06.2009 according to Hindu customs. Out of the said wedlock, respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 (minor children) were born. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that after marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands. Due to continuous harassment and ill-treatment, respondent no.1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home along with the minor children (respondent nos. 2 and 3) and is presently residing at her parental house. Respondent no.1 has no independent source of income for her and her children’s survival. It is claimed that the applicant is employed as an Engineer in the Panchayat Department earning approximately ₹50,000/- per month, in addition to an annual agricultural income of ₹2,00,000/-. On account of these circumstances, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, claiming ₹20,000/- per month for respondent no.1 and ₹10,000/- per 3 month each for respondent nos. 2 and 3, totaling ₹40,000/- per month as interim maintenance. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand. He asserted that respondent no.1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily without any valid reason and is capable of maintaining herself. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 12.04.2023, partly allowed the interim maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay a total interim maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month ₹10,000/- to respondent no.1 and ₹1,000/- each to respondent nos. 2 and 3 until final disposal of the main case, hence this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and material placed on record. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent no.1, on her own volition and without any justifiable cause, left the matrimonial home and has been living separately, thereby disentitling her from claiming interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has always made efforts to maintain matrimonial harmony, but respondent no.1 refused to cohabit and reconcile. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that the applicant has aged and dependent parents who are solely reliant on his income, and no other person is available to take care of them. Furthermore, the applicant is burdened with this maintenance liability despite the fact that the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. The impugned order erroneously 4 directs payment of interim maintenance from the date of the maintenance application i.e., 22.07.2021, despite the fact that the applicant appeared on 19.05.2022 upon receipt of notice and filed reply on 16.02.2023. The applicant humbly submits that the maintenance, if any, ought to have been directed from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. The applicant further reserves his right to raise any additional grounds and to place all relevant documents on record in support of this challenge. The order is based merely on presumption and does not meet the just requirements of the applicants, especially considering the earlier proceedings where maintenance was rightly granted. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant (wife) is the legally wedded wife of the applicant (husband), and from their matrimonial relationship, they have two daughters, whose maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant. The non-applicant, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020 (Rajnesh v. Neha and Others), has submitted an affidavit stating that she is a homemaker without any source of income. The applicant has also filed an affidavit as per the said judgment and disclosed that he is employed as a Sub-Engineer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, earning a salary of Rs. 55,652/- per 5 month. The applicant’s salary slip for January 2023 was produced, showing a gross income of Rs. 61,646/- and net salary of Rs. 55,652/-, which clearly reflects his financial capacity to provide maintenance. The reason for the applicant living separately appears justified on a prima facie basis, as seen from the pleadings and the counselling proceedings, though the final determination will depend upon evidence. Considering that the final disposal of the case may take time, the learned Family Court rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to the two daughters (Non-applicant nos. 2 and 3), totaling Rs. 12,000/- per month from the date of application (22.07.2021) till final decision of the case. Therefore, the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court is lawful, just, and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan