1 2025:CGHC:49167 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1189 of 2025 Agey Aditya Soni S/o Shri Nand Kumar Soni Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Father Nand Kumar Soni, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Late Shri Guharam Soni, R/o House No. 58, Simran City Mathpuraina Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Tripti Soni W/o Shri Nand Kumar Soni Aged About 41 Years Occupation Incharge Principal, R/o Polytechnic College Premises Govt. Nursing College Hostel Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh Office Address- Govt. Nursing College Namnakala Gandhi Chowk Ambikapur Chhattisgarh Permanent Resident Of C/o. Narad Lal Soni, 8/a Stree 82 Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.865/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court directed the respondent / mother to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months as interim maintenance to the applicant. The applicant prays for enhancement of the said amount and also seeks direction to grant such maintenance from the date of submission of the applicant under Section 144 of the BNSS. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking interim maintenance. The applicant’s father, Nandkumar Soni, married the respondent according to Hindu customs, and three sons were born from the wedlock: Vinamra Soni (born 23.04.2005), Agey Soni—the present respondent (born 28.09.2010), and Vedash Soni (born 20.02.2021). After some time, marital discord arose; the respondent frequently quarreled without cause, refused to live with the applicant’s father, and began residing separately, while the applicant remained with his father. The respondent has also filed a divorce petition, registered as Case No. 198/2023, pending before the Family Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh. The applicant, a student of Class IX at Holy Cross 3 School, Raipur, incurs annual school fees of Rs.60,000/- monthly expenses of Rs.2,000/- for tuition and Rs.2,000/- for coaching, and additional educational costs of about Rs.10,000/- requiring roughly Rs.20,000/- per month. Since February 2016, the respondent has been employed in a government post and is presently serving as In-charge Principal, Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month, whereas the applicant’s father has no source of income and cannot meet the applicant’s educational expenses. Consequently, the applicant sought interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, filing a copy of the application under Section 144 B.N.S.S.. After notice, the respondent filed a reply denying the averments and objecting to the interim-maintenance claim. Upon framing issues, the learned Family Court, by order dated 17.04.2025, allowed the application and directed payment of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Finding this amount inadequate, the applicant now seeks revision for enhancement of the maintenance and for payment from the date of the original application. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interim maintenance order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in Case No. 865/2024 is inadequate and requires enhancement under the Hindu Marriage Act. Despite evidence proving the applicant’s need, the court awarded only Rs.10,000/- per month, failing to 4 properly assess the respondent’s financial capacity. The respondent, who voluntarily left the matrimonial home and refuses to live with her husband and minor son, is employed as In-charge Principal, Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month, while the applicant’s father has no income and struggles to meet the applicant’s educational and living expenses. The court erred in appreciating the respondent’s income and overlooked these facts, even though the respondent has also sought a divorce (Case No. 198/2023, Family Court Durg). Considering the respondent’s status and income, and in the interest of justice, the applicant seeks enhancement of the interim maintenance and reserves the right to raise additional grounds or submit further documents at the time of hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court directed the respondent / mother to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per months as interim maintenance to the applicant, after reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Family Court held that the applicant, Master Agey Aditya Soni, is the son of the respondent, Smt. Tripti Soni, and is presently studying in Class 9 while living with his father, who lacks sufficient income to meet the child’s educational and living expenses. Recognizing the joint responsibility of both parents for the 5 applicant’s upbringing and education, the Court allowed the interim maintenance application and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month as interim maintenance to the applicant, effective from 17.04.2025, until final disposal of the case or until further orders. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil