1 2025:CGHC:35470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 892 of 2025 Smt. Bharti Badwaik W/o Ajay Badwaik Aged About 28 Years Occupation - Unemployed R/o 561/3, Sahupara Ward No. 19, Ramnagar Aanganbadi Road Supela P.S. Vaishali Nagar Tehsil And District - Durg C-(C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ajay Badwaik S/o Shri Surendra Badwaik Aged About 24 Years Occupation- Business R/o Ravindra Nath Tagore New Friends Colony Near Lalaji Lawan, Khat Road (Mentioned As Khatrol In Impugned Order) Bhandra District - Bhandara (Maharashtra) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No. 860/2024, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/wife has been partly allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife/applicant. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant/wife and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 13:23:08 +0530 2 respondent-husband were married on 17.04.2022, following Hindu customs and rituals at Krishna Garden, Bhilai. The applicant’s father incurred substantial expenses in the marriage at the insistence of the applicant’s in-laws. After the marriage, the applicant moved to her matrimonial home at Bhandara, Maharashtra, where she discovered that her in-laws were dissatisfied with the gifts given by her father. They began harassing her over the alleged non-fulfilment of certain dowry demands. Despite her father sending money to meet their demands, the in-laws demanded ₹50,00,000 and a car, and subjected the applicant to continuous harassment and physical assault. On 20.04.2024, when the applicant’s family visited Bhandara to reconcile, they were abused and sent back along with the applicant, who was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Since then, the applicant has been residing with her parents at Durg and lodged a complaint with the Mahila Thana, Bhilai on 15.05.2024. The applicant has no source of income, and the respondent has failed to provide any financial support. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Learned Family Court, Durg on 25.06.2024, seeking maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, along with an interim maintenance application for ₹30,000 per month on account of daily and monthly expenses. She also submitted an affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities. 3. The respondent-husband contested the proceedings and filed a reply along with his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. The Learned Family Court, vide order dated 14.05.2025, awarded an interim maintenance of ₹1,000 per month to the applicant from the date of filing the application, i.e., 25.06.2024. The impugned order is contrary to settled legal principles governing interim maintenance and is grossly inadequate. Hence, the present revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg acted contrary to settled principles of law by mechanically computing an interim maintenance amount of ₹1,000/- per month, despite clear evidence that the petitioner was ousted from her matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of dowry demands. The respondent has failed to provide any financial support, even after acknowledging the petitioner as his legally wedded wife. The Family Court failed to adhere to the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (AIR 2021 SC 569), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that maintenance must be determined objectively based on pleadings and affidavits of disclosure. However, no such assessment was made in the present case, and the order passed is perfunctory, arbitrary, and grossly inadequate. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain (AIR 2017 SC 1640), the Supreme Court held that the financial capacity of the wife’s parents is irrelevant. The test is whether the claimant has independent income sufficient for her maintenance. The Court must consider the status of the parties and the paying capacity of the husband—factors the Trial Court ignored. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, avoiding both extremes—excessive or meagre. The quantum awarded should enable the wife to live with dignity and reasonable comfort, which the present award of ₹1,000/- fails to ensure. The Trial Court also ignored the fact that the respondent comes from a financially sound background, owns a business, has no dependents, and bears no financial liabilities. These factors were relevant for assessing his capacity to pay maintenance and should have been duly considered. The findings of the Family Court are patently erroneous, unsustainable in law, and contrary to settled legal principles. The order fails the test of judicial prudence and does not serve the purpose of interim relief. The impugned 4 order is legally flawed. It undermines the spirit of maintenance laws, which recognize maintenance as a legal right of the wife. A token amount of ₹1,000/- does not reflect the realities of the applicant’s needs and the respondent’s financial position, nor does it fulfil the object of granting interim maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this 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