1 2025:CGHC:52205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1278 of 2025 Tuleshwar Dewangan S/o Shri Khemlal Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Korasi Bhaisa, P S - Kharora, Tehsil - Kharora, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus Shrimati Arti Dewangan D/o Laxminarayan Dewangan Aged About 22 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Mowa, P S - Pandri, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has 3led this criminal revision against the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.934/2023, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 5000/- per month to KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 respondent as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 03.05.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs at Satnam Bhawan, Adarsh Nagar, Mowa, Raipur (C.G.). After the marriage, the respondent started residing with the applicant and his family members at Korasi (Bhainsa), P.S. Kharoora, District Raipur. It is alleged by the respondent that the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand and the applicant maintained illicit relations with one Ratna Sahu, who frequently visited the matrimonial house. The respondent has further stated that she was physically assaulted, even during pregnancy, which ultimately led to miscarriage after the applicant allegedly forced her to take medicines from an unquali3ed doctor. Thereafter, the applicant dropped her at her parental home on 06.06.2023 with the direction not to return unless she brings a motorcycle. On account of some 3nancial hardships, the respondent 3led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 05.09.2023 seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant 3led his return stating and denying the respondent wife allegations and stated he has never committed any cruelty with the respondent. In fact, the respondent/ wife never followed the duties of the wife and without any suBcient cause left the applicant and there was no aCair of the applicant 3 herein with another women and submitted that he is working as a computer operator in petrol pump and earning about Rs 10,000 /- per month and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The learned Family Court, upon considering the pleadings of both sides, granted interim maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent/wife. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that, without any suBcient cause, the respondent has voluntarily left the matrimonial home and hence, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance amount. It is further submitted that the applicant has a limited source of income, earning only about Rs. 10,000/- per month and he also has to maintain his aged parents and bear other household responsibilities. The learned Family Court also failed to consider that interim maintenance cannot be granted from the date of the application, as has been done in the present case, making the impugned order illegal, perverse, and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court erred in not applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, wherein it has been categorically held that even for grant of interim maintenance, both parties must furnish aBdavits disclosing their income, which has not been complied with in the present case. He further submits that the allegations made by the respondent are false, bald, and unbelievable, and the same, in fact, constitute mental cruelty upon the applicant rather than upon the respondent. It is also submitted that granting Rs. 5,000/- as 4 interim maintenance out of the applicant’s meagre income of Rs. 10,000/- is on the higher side and contrary to the settled principle that only up to one-half of the income may be considered for such purpose. The counselling report and FIR clearly reveal that the applicant was always willing to reside with his wife, but it was the respondent who left his company without any valid reason. The allegations regarding cruelty and an alleged extramarital aCair are false and fabricated. In view of the facts, circumstances, and material on record, it is clear that the respondent has suBcient means to maintain herself, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to respondent, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the respondent is entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until 3nal disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 3nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in3rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 11. 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 three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certi3ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal