1 2025:CGHC:51392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1252 of 2025 1. Smt. Shradha Mishra D/o Shri Pramod Kumar Mishra, Aged About 35 Years W/o Sanjay Mishra, Occupation- Housewife, R/o House No. 46, Second Floor, Suddugunte Palya, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bayrappa Layout, Bengaluru, (Karnataka) Present Address- Uslapur, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Athrav Kumar Mishra, S/o Sanjay Mishra, Aged About 4 Years Occupation- Student, Minor Through His Mother And Guardian Namely Smt. Shraddha Mishra, The Applicant No. 1, R/o House No. 46, Second Floor, Suddugunte Palya, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bayrappa Layout, Bengaluru, (Karnataka) Present Address- Uslapur, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Sanjay Mishra S/o Shri Ram Mani Mishra, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Employee (Supplier Delivery Performance Manager, Alstom), R/o House No. 9/86, Shri Kunj, Harihar Nagar, Majiyar Road, Bodabaga, Bodanala, Rewa, District Rewa (M.P.), Present Address House No.- 2nd Floor, Suddugunte Palya. J.V. Raman Nagar, Bayrappa Layout, Bengaluru (Karnataka) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.16 18:09:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.10.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 392/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has granted an order of interim maintenance to the tune of only Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant No.2/son. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of Applicant No. 1 with the Non-Applicant was solemnized on 23.02.2018 at Harihar Nagar, Rewa (M.P.), as per Hindu rites and caste customs. From this marriage, a son, Adharv Mishra, was born on 23.02.2023. Initially, the relationship between the applicant and the non-applicant remained cordial. However, over time, the non- applicant and his parents began subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty. Eventually, the non-applicant abandoned the applicant, compelling her to return to her parental home, where she now resides. Applicant No. 1 is unemployed despite being educated and has no independent source of income. She is entirely dependent on her parents. In contrast, the non-applicant earns an annual income of approximately ₹21,00,000 but has allegedly neglected the applicants for several years. Since resolution of the main case is likely to take time, the applicant sought interim maintenance of ₹60,000 per month for herself and the child’s maintenance and 3 education. A copy of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., along with the interim maintenance application, is filed as Annexure A/2. 3. In reply, the non-applicant admitted the marriage but denied the remaining allegations. He claimed that the applicant left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and is living independently. He further submitted that the applicant is an engineer (Electronics and Communication), earning approximately ₹50,000 per month from a private job in Bilaspur. She allegedly has an FD of ₹6–7 lakhs and around ₹4–5 lakhs in a PPF account. The non- applicant also stated that he voluntarily sends ₹10,000 per month to the applicant and that, since she is self-sufficient, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partially allowed the interim maintenance application, granting ₹5,000 per month to the applicant from the date of the order until final disposal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 160/2025. This Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 05.02.2025, quashed the Family Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In compliance with the order dated 05.02.2025, the learned Family Court reconsidered the matter and granted interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month to the wife and ₹3,000 per month to the minor son, totaling ₹10,000 per month. The present impugned order has been passed accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. 4 The learned Family Court has erred in law by awarding only Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicants. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Applicant No. 1 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in- laws, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and live separately. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that Applicant No. 1 has no independent source of income and is solely responsible for maintaining herself and their 4-year-old child (Applicant No. 2), while the non-applicant/husband is earning approximately Rs. 21,00,000/- per annum as a Supplier Delivery Performance Manager at Alstom Company. Despite the non- applicant's substantial income, the Court granted a meagre interim maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/-, which is grossly inadequate and per se illegal. The amount ought to have been reasonably higher, considering his earning capacity. The non-applicant has failed in his moral and legal duty to maintain his wife and minor child, including neglecting to pay for the child’s basic educational expenses. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife is unemployed and is facing extreme financial hardship, especially in paying for the child's schooling and daily needs. Applicant No. 2 (the child) is currently in KG-I, and there are ongoing and future expenses relating to education, healthcare, and general upkeep, which the awarded amount does not sufficiently cover. The learned Court ought to have prioritized the welfare of the minor child, which is paramount, and the father’s duty to contribute adequately towards the same. 5 5. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that interim maintenance should be at least 25% of the husband’s net income in cases where the wife is unemployed or has no means of sustenance. In the present case, 25% of the non- applicant’s income would amount to Rs. 41,250/-, but only Rs. 10,000/- (less than 3.03%) has been awarded. Considering the non- applicant’s annual income of Rs. 21,00,000/- and the fact that he resides alone at his place of work, he is financially well capable of paying a higher interim maintenance amount of at least Rs. 60,000/- per month. In light of the overall facts and circumstances, the applicants humbly pray that the interim maintenance amount be enhanced to a just and reasonable sum, commensurate with the non-applicant’s income and the needs of the wife and minor child. The impugned order is based on conjecture and surmises and is, therefore, liable to be set aside or suitably modified by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is 6 refused. 9. 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. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti