1 2025:CGHC:21052 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 982 of 2024 1 - Smt. Tanzila Ali W/o Mohammed Salman Abdulla, Aged About 29 Years, R/o H.No. 03, Cross Street-1, Chandra Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, Tehsil and District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant/Petitioner versus 1 - Mohammed Salman Abdulla S/o Mohammed Islammudin, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tees Futa Road, Gali No-2, Ikram Nagar, P.S. Loni Dehat, District Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. ... Non-applicant/Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. For Respondent/Non-applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07-05-2025 1. The present criminal revision filed by the applicant/petitioner against the order dated 21-06-2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No.1218/2023 whereby the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of the applicant/petitioner which is payable from the date of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13-05-2022 as per their rites and rituals. After the marriage the petitioner/applicant was residing with the respondent/non-applicant at her matrimonial house. After some time of the marriage some dispute arose between the parties and ultimately both of them started residing separately. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Cr.P.C. on 21-09-2023 for grant of monthly maintenance amount from the respondent/non-applicant Rs.75,000/- per month. In the application the applicant averred that the respondent/non-applicant is an Engineer employed as Synder Electric Company Banglore and earning Rs.1,50,000/ - per month, whereas, the applicant is house maker and fully dependent upon her parents. The applicant is also entitled for monthly maintenance amount as per the status of her husband/respondent and therefore, she claimed Rs.75,000/- per month as maintenance amount. Along with the said application the applicant also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.45,000/- per month during pendency of the main application. 3. Replying the application filed by the applicant, the respondent denied the averment of the applicant and submitted that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient cause, her behaviour towards him was not good during stay with him at her matrimonial house. Despite making his various efforts she has not joined the company of her husband and he she obtained the customery divorce from the applicant and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance amount. 4. The learned Family Court after considering the affidavits filed by the respective parties as well the documents annexed with the application, partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance amount and granted Rs.7000/- per month maintenance to the applicant/wife which is payable from the date date application and the same is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent is having sufficient source of income and highly paid employee in an multinational company and earning more than Rs.1,50,000/ per month , yet the learned Family Court has granted meager amount to the applicant/wife. He would submit that the self declaration affidavit has been 3 submitted by the respondent/non-applicant in which he declared that he is earning Rs.99,000/- per month as his salary. Looking to the status of the parties, Rs.7000/- per month is very meager amount and also insufficient for her day to day expenses. Therefore, the amount of interim maintenance may be enhanced as per the status of the parties. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/non-applicant opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that on the basis of documents submitted before it as well as the affidavits of the parties, the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order and granted interim maintenance to the applicant/wife. The parties may lead evidence with respect to the income and liability and final adjudication of the main application is yet to be decided and therefore, there is no merits in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material annexed with the petition as well as record of the Family Court. 8. The grant of interim maintenance is always lies with discretion of the family court which is to be based on the income of the parties, their living standards, their day to day expenses in the routine life. Whiled considering the application of the applicant/wife, the learned Family Court has considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and after adverting the entire evidence available with the case, requirement of day to day expenses and income of the parties as well as their socio economic status granted Rs.7000/-/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant/wife. The final adjudication of the main application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is pending before the learned Family Court, any observation made at this stage may prejudice the final outcome of the main application. The parties may lead their evidence and prove their 4 respective submissions before the learned Family Court, but at this stage it would be very difficult to interfere with the impugned order granting interim maintenance to the applicant/wife. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Record of the learned Family Court be sent back immediately to the concerned Family Court. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil