1 2025:CGHC:51662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1260 of 2025 Rohit Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Mohota Aged About 29 Years R/o R.Z.-I./23, Old H.D.M. Bazaar Road, Mahaveer Enclave-1, South West, New Delhi --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Nikita Shah W/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 28 Years R/o Ring Road No. 2, Ashok Vihar Colony, Gondwara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Yuvan Mohota S/o Rohit Kumar Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, Smt. Nikita Shah (Mother) , R/o Ring Road No. 2, Ashok Vihar Colony, Gondwara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Muskan Fatwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /10/2025 1. Heard Ms. Muskan Fatwani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.559/2024, whereby learned Family KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court has granted Rs. 8000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 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 case of respondent No. 1 in her main and interim maintenance application is that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 26.04.2021 at New Delhi, and from their wedlock, a son named Yuvaan Mahato was born on 23.12.2022. The applicant used to consume alcohol and often assaulted and abused the Non- applicant No.1. One night, his behavior turned extremely violent, and he allegedly tried to strangulate her. When she informed his family, they also abused and assaulted her. On 24.05.2023, she went to her parental home in Raipur with her son for some days. In August 2023, she again went back to New Delhi to reconcile, but the applicant abused her again and threw her out of the house. Finding it unsafe and impossible to live with him, she started residing at her parental home. She has no independent source of income. The applicant owns a four-storey house/shop at Dwarka, Delhi and runs a wholesale stationery business, earning about ₹5,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the Non-applicants sought ₹80,000/- per month as interim maintenance for herself and her child. 4. The applicant, in his reply to the main and interim maintenance application, stated that the Non-applicant No.1 used to frequently quarrel with him and his parents, cooked irregularly, spent excessive time on mobile with her family and doubted him 3 unnecessarily. After a few months of marriage, she pressured him to live separately from his parents. He denied any cruelty or violence. He alleged that on 24.05.2023, she left his house along with their son without any valid reason and refused to return. Despite his efforts to bring her back, she insisted that she would live with him only if he separated from his parents. He claimed that the Non-applicant No.1 is employed as a teacher at Moonlight English Medium School, Raipur, earning ₹18,000/- per month and hence, not entitled to maintenance. The applicant himself works as a computer operator at Anita Enterprises, earning ₹16,000/- per month and is still willing to keep and maintain her within his means. Thus, he prayed that her application be dismissed with costs. 5. The Family Court after considering the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards interim maintenance. Hence, the revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order (Annexure R-1) is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as the same is not a well-reasoned or lawful order. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that Respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and imposed an unreasonable condition that the applicant must live separately from his parents, which clearly attracts the bar under Section 125(4) of the CrPC and disentitles her from claiming maintenance. The learned Family Court further erred in granting interim maintenance to Respondent No.1 despite her being 4 gainfully employed as a teacher at Moonlight English Medium School, Raipur, earning approximately ₹18,000/- per month, a fact which she deliberately concealed, thereby suppressing material information and forfeiting any equitable relief. The Family Court also failed to properly examine the documentary material produced by the applicant proving her employment and instead proceeded on an erroneous presumption of her unemployment. It is further submitted that the applicant himself is working merely as a Computer Operator at Anita Enterprises, New Delhi, earning a modest salary of ₹16,000/- per month, out of which he also maintains his aged, dependent parents. Therefore, directing him to pay ₹12,000/- per month as interim maintenance is wholly arbitrary, excessive, and unjust, leaving him with almost nothing for his own sustenance. The impugned order thus suffers from gross illegality, misappreciation of facts, and violation of settled legal principles, warranting its interference and setting aside by this Court. 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 ₹8,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and ₹4,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the 5 respondents are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final 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 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. 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 certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal