1 2025:CGHC:51393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1247 of 2025 Ms. Geeta Sharma D/o Late R.K. Katiyar Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. B, Street No. 1, Steel Colony Nehru Nagar (W), Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... applicant(s) versus Shri Vinod Sharma S/o Late Roshan Lal Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o Chandra Shekhar Azad Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC (Criminal) No.113/2025, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.2,000/- per month to the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 applicant as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that, the applicant was married to the respondent on 31.01.2008 at Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant began residing with the respondent at his matrimonial home situated in Jagdalpur. From the said wedlock, one male child was born, who is presently about 10 years of age. Subsequently, after the marriage, the applicant developed a severe mental illness and had to undergo medical treatment under the supervision of Dr. Shail Verma. Upon medical evaluation, it was diagnosed that the applicant is suffering from chronic schizophrenia, for which she has been under regular treatment and medication. The said illness manifested in various symptoms including trembling of hands and rhythmic shaking, thereby adversely affecting her ability to live and work normally. Thereafter in an utterly unscrupulous and mala fide manner, the respondent obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent from the Family Court, Jagdalpur, by deliberately suppressing the fact that the applicant was suffering from chronic schizophrenia. Acting upon the said decree, the respondent forcefully ousted the applicant from the matrimonial home, compelling her to return to her parental house at Bhilai. Due to her mental condition, the applicant has been unable to secure any gainful employment and is entirely dependent on financial support for her survival. Initially, the respondent had been paying a meagre amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards her 3 maintenance, which was grossly insufficient to meet even her basic needs. However, since June 2022, the respondent has completely stopped making any maintenance payments, leaving the applicant in a state of financial distress. In view of the said situation, the applicant duly served a legal notice upon the respondent demanding payment of maintenance, which was duly received by him on 29.06.2024. However, the respondent chose to ignore the said notice and failed to comply with the lawful demand. It is a well- settled principle of law that maintenance awarded to a legally wedded wife must be commensurate with the standard of living she enjoyed during the subsistence of marriage. The respondent, being the proprietor of a grocery store under the name and style of M/s Bhawani Daily Needs, earns approximately Rs. 70,000/- per month and is well capable of providing adequate maintenance to the applicant. In order to seek a reasonable amount for her sustenance, the applicant preferred an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg on 22.01.2025, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-. The respondent filed his reply on 04.07.2025 to the said application as well as to the application for interim maintenance, despite the applicant establishing her mental health condition, her financial incapacity, and the fact that the respondent had been paying Rs. 5,000/- per month till June 2022, the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, vide impugned order dated 24.07.2025, directed the respondent to pay only Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Hence, the revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has completely ignored the material facts placed on record through affidavits and documents submitted by both parties and failed to appreciate that the Respondent is earning approximately Rs. 70,000/- per month. Despite this, the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, quantified the interim maintenance in an unjust and arbitrary manner. The respondent had admittedly been paying the applicant Rs. 5,000/- per month earlier, yet the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 directs payment of only Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate. The court further failed to consider that the applicant is suffering from chronic schizophrenia and requires substantial recurring expenses towards medical care and treatment. The Ld. Court also accepted the respondent’s misstatement of income (Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/-) without proper enquiry, contrary to the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court that maintenance must be adequate and commensurate with the parties’ standard of living. Moreover, the applicant has not received any maintenance since July 2022, and reducing the previously paid amount is legally unsustainable. The determination of interim maintenance without objective assessment of the respondent’s income or proper appreciation of the applicant’s condition is arbitrary and erroneous. In view of the applicant’s dire financial circumstances, the impugned order substantially affects her rights and deserves to be set aside and suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 5 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has granted Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C till final disposal of the case observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is 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 Akhil