1 2025:CGHC:58429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1282 of 2022 Rameshwar Kaiwart S/o Dhansai Kaiwart Aged About 32 Years R/o Jungle Side, Magzine Raod, Bankimongara, Police Station Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora,, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus 1. Smt. Meena Kaiwart W/o Rameshwar Kaiwart Aged About 31 Years R/o Bankimongara, Police Station Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Chhaya D/o Rameshwar Kaiwart Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Meena Kaiwart, R/o Bankimongara, Police Station Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Divya Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Case No.132/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.03 15:15:25 +0530 2 the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and rejected the application with respect to respondent No. 01. 2. The facts, in brief, is that respondent No. 1, who is the wife of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba. It has been stated in the application that from the lawful wedlock of the parties, a female child, respondent No. 2, was born. The application further alleges that the applicant, along with his family members, harassed the respondent No.1 and used to beat and assault her. On account of such harassment, she has been living in a rented house at Bankimongara. It has also been stated in the application that the applicant was posted as a Soldier and was receiving a salary of Rs. 80,000/-. Further, it was alleged that he was posted as a Special Soldier in Bhutan with a salary of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and is presently posted at the 56 Battalion, drawing Rs. 80,000/- per month. The application also mentions that the applicant owns agricultural land and a residential house at Bankimongara. Consequently, the respondent No.1 prayed for interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month for the purpose of maintaining herself and her child. In response, the applicant controverted all the facts pleaded in the application. It was stated that he had neither beaten nor assaulted the respondent and that she is living voluntarily, employed in the police department, competent, and residing in government quarters while availing all benefits of government schemes. The applicant further stated that he is willing to keep her along with him and that he has been depositing Rs. 2,000/- in the Sukanya Scheme. It was also stated that the respondent No.1 left of her own volition. On this basis, the applicant contended that the respondents are not entitled to any maintenance. Despite these submissions, the learned trial court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dated 22-06-2022 (Annexure A-1), 3 directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondents. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 is illegal, improper and not sustainable according to law and liable to be quashed. She further submits that the mother of respondent No.1 is living separately along with the child and is employed in the Police Department, receiving a regular monthly income, which is not in dispute. For the purpose of the child’s education (Respondent No.2), she is availing all benefits provided by the Government under various schemes. The applicant’s wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and the company of her husband. The applicant remains willing to maintain and reside with her, but she has made false allegations against him, which can be considered at the stage of evidence. At the time of hearing the application for interim maintenance, no material was available on record to justify the grant of such maintenance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the wife is living separately by her own choice and is earning a sufficient income, and further that the applicant is responsible for maintaining his parents, the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed. The wife, in paragraph 9 of her affidavit, stated that she has admitted her daughter in DAV School, Korba, and that the child is also a student of KV Korba NTPC. At Serial No. 46 (Chhaya Kaiwart), the child is receiving benefits under the Right to Education (RTE) scheme, which is meant for economically weaker sections. However, the mother’s financial capacity does not fall within the criteria of an economically weaker person. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim interim maintenance. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the 4 submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Case No.132/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, and rejected the application with respect to respondent No. 01, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti