1 2025:CGHC:41500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1383 of 2024 Mehul Viren Varu S/o Viren Jay Varu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Palani Andawar Coil, Street, Aynavaram, Chennai, Tamil, Nadu. 600023 ... Applicant versus 1 - Bhavya Mehul Varu W/o Mehul Viren Varu, Aged About 24 Years R/o E-100, Sector 01, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. 2 - Minor Riya Varu D/o Mehul Viren Varu Aged About 2 Years Through Her Guardian / Mother Bhavya Mehul Varu, --- R/o E-100, Sector 01, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492001. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appears through VC For Respondents : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel the applicant appears through VC. Also heard Ms. Anamika Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to revise the order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the learned Court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) in case bearing number Miscellaneous Criminal Case/491/2023 (Smt. Bhavya Mehul Varu and Other v Mehul Viren Varu)and consequently: A. Quash or set asidethe monthly subsistence/maintenance and reduce the maintenance amount from 18,000/- to a reasonable amount, taking into account the applicant's financial capacity, the needs of the Respondents, and other relevant factors; B. Modify the maintenance in view of the Respondent's refusal to cohabit with the applicant and her avoidance of the matrimonial home without any valid reason or; C. Pass any further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 12.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter Respondent No.1 joined the applicant at his matrimonial home in Chennai, where he resided with his family. After a few months, Respondent No.1 conceived and, on her mother’s advice, went to her parental home at Raipur during her pregnancy, where she gave birth to a female child in October 2021. It is submitted that despite remaining in regular contact with the applicant and his family during this period, Respondent No.1 thereafter unjustifiably refused to return to her matrimonial home 3 and, instead, initiated proceedings for divorce and maintenance on false allegations. On her application, an interim maintenance of Rs.18,000/– per month has been awarded in her favor, overlooking the financial incapacity of the applicant. The acts and conduct of Respondent No.1 have caused grave emotional distress to the applicant, including considerable loss of health, while also depriving him of his rights and responsibilities as a father. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and arbitrariness, inasmuch as the learned family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, evidence, and judicial principles applicable to the present case. Despite documentary proof of the applicant’s limited monthly income of Rs.25,000/– to Rs.30,000/–, the Court has erroneously directed him to pay Rs.18,000/– as interim maintenance, which is highly disproportionate to his actual financial capacity and leaves him with an unreasonably meager amount for his own sustenance and other financial obligations. The Court failed to consider the reasonable needs of the Respondents, the local cost of living, and the standard of living during the subsistence of marriage, and instead placed undue reliance upon the unsubstantiated averments of the Respondents. It is further submitted that the applicant, who is not well-settled and has various financial responsibilities including health issues, is willing to cohabit with his wife and child, but Respondent No.1 has unreasonably refused to return to the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, 4 which ought to have been considered as a material factor in deciding maintenance. Thus, the order of interim maintenance at such an excessive rate has caused grave injustice to the applicant and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record, rightly found substance in the claim of Respondent No.1 and, by a reasoned order, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.18,000/– per month in her favor. The Court below, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., correctly appreciated that Respondent No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant and the mother of a minor child, is entitled to maintenance as the applicant, despite being under a legal and moral obligation, failed to provide for their sustenance. The allegations of cruelty, neglect, and refusal to maintain were supported by the material evidence on record, whereas the objections raised by the applicant were found to be untenable and without merit. The Family Court has thus exercised its discretion 5 judiciously, keeping in view the welfare of the wife and minor child, and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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