1 2025:CGHC:22288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1117 of 2024 1 - Raju Singh Raj S/o Chandrabhan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Occupation Service T.T.I. South East Central Railway, Raigarh, Resident of Quarter No. 44/2, Railway Bunglow Para, Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Raj W/o Raju Singh Raj, Aged About 36 Years, Occupation House Wife, Permanent Resident of Barbhatha, Ratanpur, Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident of Quarter No. 44/2, Railway Bunglow Para Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Minor Yashwant Raj S/o Raju Singh Raj, Aged About 12 Years, Occupation Student, Class-6, Central School, Raigarh, Through- Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Raj (Respondent No.1), Permanent Resident of Barbhatha, Ratanpur, Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident of Quarter No. 44/2, Railway Bunglow Para Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Minor Shivangi Raj D/o Raju Singh Raj, Aged About 8 Years, Occupation Student, Through- Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Raj (Respondent No.1), Permanent Resident of Barbhatha, Ratanpur, Bilaspur (C.G.), At Present Resident Of Quarter No. 44/2, Railway Bunglow Para Raigarh, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicants/Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/Non-applicants : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 22-05-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision against the order dated 08-08-2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh, in Cr. M.J.C. No. 69 of 2024, whereby an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month has been granted to the present respondents towards maintenance amount, which is payable from the date of the order. 2. The subject matter, in brief, is that the respondent No. 1 is the wife of the petitioner. Due to the dispute between them, the respondent No. 1 is residing separately from the petitioner, along with her minor children. The respondents have filed an application for the grant of monthly maintenance amount from the petitioner and alleged that the petitioner is having an extramarital relationship with another lady, and it is not possible for the respondent No. 1 to reside with him. The petitioner is a T.T.E. in the Railway department and earns Rs. 70,000/- per month and claims Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance amount. Along with the application for maintenance, an application for the grant of interim maintenance has also been filed by the respondents. 3. The petitioner, in his reply, denied the allegation made against him and submitted that the respondent No. 1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause. The respondents are residing in his quarter, which is allotted to him by the department. A false allegation of an extramarital relationship has been levelled, which he denied. He denied the entitlement to the maintenance/interim maintenance amount to the respondents. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondents and granted total Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which is payable from the date of the order, i.e. 08-08-2024. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 has levelled a total false allegation of extramarital affair, and there is no basis 3 for it. The petitioner is earning about Rs. 27,000/- per month, and granting Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondents is an excessive amount and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to any interim maintenance amount. He would also submit that during the pendency of the present criminal revision, the main application of the respondents before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, for the grant of maintenance amount is dismissed for want of prosecution on 08-01-2025, and has filed the copy of the order sheet along with the covering memo dated 22-05-2025. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, though, have submitted that the petitioner has developed an extramarital relationship with another lady, and therefore, she has sufficient cause to reside separately from the petitioner. The Respondents do not dispute that the application for maintenance before the learned Family Court is dismissed for want of prosecution on 08-01-2025, and till date, they have not filed any application for its restoration. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. The subject matter in the present petition is the grant of an interim maintenance amount to the respondent and its quantum. The dominant and primary object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. It provides a speedy remedy, and the wife, children, and infirm parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. In the present case, the status of the parties, the earning capacity of the petitioner, his salary slip for the month of February 2016, and also the requirements in daily expenses in routine life, present 4 cost of living and other surrounding circumstances, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application, and granted total Rs. 20,000/- per month as an interim maintenance amount for the respondents. 9. The quantum of maintenance amount always lies with the discretion of the Family Court, based on some guesswork, the financial capacity of the parties, their living status, the requirement of day-to-day expenses, and any observation in the quantum of interim maintenance may prejudice the ultimate outcome of the main application. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Further, the main application of the respondents has been dismissed for want of prosecution on 08-01-2025, and as per the statement made by the respondent’s counsel, no application for restoration has been filed till date. 10. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of grant of interim maintenance to the respondents. Accordingly, the criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil