1 2025:CGHC:26856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1109 of 2022 1 - Smt. Bhumika Rahuja W/o Shri Manoj Rahuja Aged About 40 Years D/o Late Shri Ishwardas Panjwani, Present Address- C/o Santosh Panjwani, Shivshakti Kirana, Behind Sabji Market, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Saumya Rahuja D/o Shri Manoj Rahuja Aged About 9 Years Through Legal Representative Smt. Bhumika Rahuja (Mother), Aged About 40 Years, D/o Late Shri Ishwardas Panjwani, Present Address- C/o Santosh Panjwani, Shivshakti Kirana, Behind Sabji Market, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Shri Manoj Rahuja S/o Late Ramesh Rahuja Aged About 41 Years R/o Sati Mandir Lane, Sonkar Para, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : None For Non-applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and may kindly be pleased to enhance the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure A/1) from Rs. 7,000/- p.m. to amount of Rs. 40,000/- p.m. to the applicants. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders in the favour of the applicants, as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefs facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant no.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 30.01.2005 at Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born a son Kunal Rahuja (born on 20.04.2010), who resides with the respondent, and a daughter Saumya Rahuja (born on 14.05.2012), who resides with applicant no.1. After marriage, the respondent and his family members started harassing and treating applicant no.1 with cruelty, both physically and mentally. Despite having two children, their conduct did not change. Ultimately, applicant no.1 was assaulted, insulted, and forcibly thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. Since then, applicant no.1 has been living separately and has no source of income. On 17.12.2021, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Raipur seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, praying for ₹40,000/- per 3 month on the ground that the respondent earns more than ₹1,00,000/- per month. The respondent, however, has not provided any financial support since 2020, despite being well-off. Applicant no.1 has been solely bearing the expenses of her minor daughter, including school fees and daily living costs. They are compelled to live alternately at the homes of her parents, sister, or aunt, as applicant no.1 has no independent residence or income. The respondent in his written statement denied the alleged income and claimed that he earns only ₹30,000/- per month through an SRL diagnostic collection center. He further stated that most of his earnings go towards shop rent, electricity, and staff salaries. However, the respondent failed to justify how he manages his household if his entire income is spent on the shop. Without proper scrutiny of the respondent’s actual income and overlooking material facts, the Family Court granted only ₹7,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which is inadequate for the sustenance and educational needs of the applicants, hence this revision petition. 3. learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant no.2 is their minor daughter. The marital status and the parentage of the child were never denied by the respondent at any 4 stage of the proceedings. The learned Family Court duly took note of the consistent allegations of cruelty, harassment, and desertion faced by the applicant no.1 at the hands of the respondent and his family members. The applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home along with her minor daughter and seek shelter with her parents. The Family Court rightly observed that the respondent failed in his duty to provide maintenance and support, which made the claim for interim maintenance just and necessary. The applicant no.1 has clearly stated on affidavit, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 730/2020, that she is a housewife and has no source of income. She is dependent on her parents for her sustenance as well as that of her minor daughter. The respondent failed to produce any material to show that the applicant had any independent income. Further the Family Court correctly appreciated the material placed on record regarding the income of the respondent. Although the respondent claimed to earn ₹30,000/- per month through his diagnostic collection centre and showed various deductions, the Family Court rightly observed that he did not disclose any credible material to substantiate how he manages his own expenses and lifestyle if his entire claimed income is exhausted on business expenses. Therefore, it prima facie appeared that the respondent has sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife and child. The Family Court judiciously fixed the interim maintenance at ₹6,000/- per month for the applicant no.1 and ₹1,000/- per month for the minor daughter, 5 making a total of ₹7,000/- per month. The amount is modest and reasonable considering the claimed income of the respondent and the immediate needs of the applicants for survival, especially when the respondent’s exact income is within his own knowledge and control. The Family Court followed the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Another (supra) and rightly exercised its discretion to ensure that the applicants are not left destitute during the pendency of the proceedings. 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