1 2025:CGHC:45674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1103 of 2025 Prashant Ratre S/o Shri Ishwar Prasad Ratre Aged About 36 Years R/o Amarkantak Tiraha, Smart City, Ward No. 12, Anuppur Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Bhuneshwari Bharti W/o Prashant Ratre Aged About 34 Years R/o 84-A, Near Horizon Hospital, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Harsika Ratre D/o Prashant Ratre Aged About 2 Years (Minor) Represented Through Mother I.E. Smt. Bhuneshwari Bharti, W/o Prashant Ratre, Aged About Years, R/o 84-A, Near Horizon Hospital, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1189/2024, whereby learned Family Court granted Rs.10,000/- AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter as interim maintenance in the application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) filed by the respondents. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to applicant is that the applicant was legally married to Bhuneshwari Bharti and was residing with her at the address mentioned above. Out of this lawful wedlock, a daughter (respondent No. 2) was born on 30.06.2022. However, on the same date, the respondent wife voluntarily left the applicant’s home, taking the newborn child with her, and began residing separately. Subsequently, to frustrate the applicant, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. The case was registered on 18.09.2024, and notice was served to the applicant, who duly submitted a detailed reply. In his reply, the applicant denied all allegations of desertion and asserted that the respondent wife is a well-educated and financially independent woman who owns and operates a physiotherapy clinic and fitness center at House No. 84, Jal Vihar Colony, Raipur. It was further contended that she employs 3, 4 staff members and earns approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Despite these facts, the learned Family Court, without properly considering the applicant’s submissions, passed an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month jointly to the wife and daughter. Aggrieved by the same present revision has been filed by the applicant. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is bad in law and facts, as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that it was the respondent wife who voluntarily deserted the applicant and his family. Moreover, without calling for any income certificate or financial documents from the respondent wife, who is financially independent, the Court arbitrarily passed an order of Rs.25,000/month as interim maintenance. The applicant, a Medical Officer, already bears the responsibility of maintaining his elderly parents and has financial liabilities. Additionally, he is already paying Rs.6,000/month under Section 24 HMA to the respondent wife. Multiple cases have also been filed by the respondent against the applicant in various forums solely to harass him. The Court ought to have considered the respondent’s financial status and called for evidence before granting such maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is unjust, arbitrary, and deserves to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court granted Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter as interim maintenance in the application under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) filed by the respondents after reviewing the pleadings and circumstances of 4 the case, observed that it is an undisputed fact that the respondent No.1 (Bhuneswari Bharti) is the legally wedded wife of the applicant (Prashant Ratre), and applicant No.2 (Harshika Ratre) is their daughter. Although the parties have made conflicting allegations regarding desertion and domestic issues, the truth of these claims can only be determined after proper evidence is presented, which is yet to begin. Considering that the case may take time to conclude and that both respondents are dependents of the applicant, the Court found it just and necessary to grant interim maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court directed the applicant to pay a total interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/- to the daughter effective from 18.09.2024 until the final decision or further orders. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil