1 2025:CGHC:42059 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1026 of 2025 Dr. Hemant Sinha S/o Cheturam Sinha Aged About 42 Years Address - House No. - M.I.G.-2/a/2/73/6, Nehru Nagar West, P.S.- Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Deepmala Sinha W/o Hemant Sinha Address - House No. - M.I.G.-2/a/2/73/6, Nehru Nagar West, P.S.- Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Apurva Sinha D/o Hemant Sinha Aged About 10 Years Mother Deepmala Sinha On Behalf Of respondentNo. 2 Minor Address- House No. - M.I.G.-2/a/2/73/6, Nehru Nagar West, P.S.- Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant criminal revision and set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by Learned 1st Additional Principal Family Court Durg (C.G.) in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock the respondent No.2 was born. The respondent no.1, along with her daughter, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 22.05.2024 seeking maintenance, alleging financial hardship, irregular income from her work at VP Bharat Press, and acts of abuse compelling her to approach the Women Police Station. It was further alleged that the applicant, a doctor by profession, earns Rs. 2.5–3 lakhs per month from his clinic, Rs. 10,000 from rental income, and owns property at Mangata, and therefore she sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 50,000/-. The applicant denied the allegations, contending that the wife is well-educated, holding degrees in Journalism and BA/LLB, employed as a senior reporter earning Rs. 40,000–50,000 per month, and neglects the non- applicant, who is being maintained by him with proper education and care. The Family Court, however, partly allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-, and thereafter by order dated 21.07.2025 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is not earning as much as his wife and is already burdened with EMIs of Rs. 35,659/- per month, the direction to pay Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance causes severe financial hardship, particularly when the applicant is already bearing all expenses of 3 the respondent and ensuring her well-being without any omission of duty. The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive, disproportionate, and based on misappreciation of facts. He further submits that the respondent is residing under the same roof with the applicant, who has been fulfilling all her needs including schooling and daily requirements, a fact which ought to have been duly considered. Further, the wife of the applicant has admitted in cross- examination that she is employed in journalism, maintains active bank accounts and fixed deposits with Punjab National Bank, holds insurance policies, and has multiple bank accounts, yet the Family Court failed to appreciate her equal accountability towards the non- applicant. The applicant does not earn a fixed monthly income and is already discharging heavy liabilities towards house, land, and car loans, but the learned Family Court erroneously assumed his monthly income to be Rs. 70,000–75,000/-. The impugned order thus suffers from perversity, is contrary to law, and is liable to be set aside. 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 respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 16.02.2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock the respondent No.2 was born. The wife of the applicant, along with the non-applicant, moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 22.05.2024 seeking maintenance, asserting that she was facing financial hardship, was 4 working at VP Bharat Press with irregular income, and was subjected to abuse which also compelled her to lodge complaints before the Women Police Station. It was further brought on record that the applicant, being a doctor, earns Rs. 2.5–3 lakhs per month from his clinic, in addition to Rs. 10,000 as rental income and property at Mangata, and therefore she sought maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. On due consideration, the learned Family Court, while assessing the pleadings and material placed on record, found substance in the claim of the respondents and, after initially granting interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-, rightly directed the applicant by order dated 21.07.2025 to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month towards maintenance. 6. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan