1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1108 of 2025 Akhilesh Agrawal S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 17/10, Nehru Nagar (Purv), Bhilai, Tahsil and District- Durg C.G. 490020, Mob. No. 7999294109. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rajshri Agrawal W/o Akhilesh Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Navdurga Chowk, Mahamaya Mandir Road, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 492001, Mo No. 8234829401 2. Kumari Pragati Agrawal (Minor), D/o Akhilesh Agrawal Aged About 14 Years Through Legal Heir Mother Smt. Rajshri Agrawal, R/o Navdurga Chowk, Mahamaya Mandir Road, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 492001, Mo No. 8234829401 ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned interim order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 202/2025, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.10 18:57:38 +0530 2 whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 10,000/- for respondent No.2/daughter which will be received by respondent No.1on behalf of Minor, as interim maintenance. 2. The facts, in brief, is that it is not in dispute that the marriage between the Applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 30.05.2009 at Agrawal Samaj Bhawan, Priyadarshini Parisar (West), G.E. Road, Bhilai, District-Durg, according to Hindu rites. From their wedlock, a daughter, Pragati Agrawal (respondent No. 2), was born on 17.12.2010. Soon after her pregnancy, respondent No.1left the matrimonial home without informing the applicant about the birth of the child. She stated that the house was small and unfit for living but did not return nor communicate about the treatment of the child. The respondent No.1 has been residing separately without sufficient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under the law. From the very beginning of the marriage, respondent No.1did not cooperate in household affairs and disobeyed medical advice, including failure to administer prescribed vaccinations. This allegedly resulted in the birth of a disabled child. She later obtained a 100% disability certificate for the child from the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Raipur. It is submitted that from 2010 onwards, the respondent No.1has been maintaining herself and the minor child from her own income. The maintenance application was filed for the first time on 05.02.2025, after a lapse of nearly 13 years, which clearly indicates that she was capable of 3 maintaining herself and her child during this entire period. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has disclosed in his affidavit that his monthly income is Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- from small-scale trade like papad, badi, achar, and Rs.10,000/- from agriculture). Respondent No.1 has not disclosed any source of income, but her claim of having no income is unbelievable given that she has been independently managing for over 13 years. The medical prescriptions filed on record do not reflect any significant medical expenses related to treatment of mental illness. The bills submitted mainly pertain to routine items like diapers, baby food, and milk. Therefore, the award of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child is excessive and unsustainable in law. The learned Trial Court failed to properly assess the applicant’s income while deciding the maintenance application. The order granting Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 is similarly arbitrary and excessive. Even if the applicant’s monthly income is considered as Rs.20,000/-, then as per Section 60(1)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, only 1/3rd of his income is attachable. This would amount to Rs.6,667/- (rounded off to Rs.7,000/-) per month. The rest of the income is required for the applicant’s own survival and basic needs. Therefore, the award of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) per month exceeds the legally permissible limit and is liable to be quashed or reduced. Furthermore, the application dated 05.02.2025 lacks essential pleadings, particularly no specific allegations of neglect or refusal to maintain have been made by the respondent against the applicant, 4 which is a mandatory requirement for granting maintenance under the law. Hence, the maintenance application itself ought to have been dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, though it is stated that the applicant is paying the interim maintenance of amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 10,000/- for respondent No.2/daughter, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 in Case No. 202/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.10,000/- for respondent No.2/daughter as interim maintenance, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 6. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 7. 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 four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 5 8. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti