1 2025:CGHC:58426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 420 of 2022 Tiku Ram Pansari S/o Shri Ramsay Pansari Aged About 39 Years Occupation Mechanic Helper, R/o Village And Post Surpa, Thana- Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Mithlesh Pansari W/o Shri Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Surpa, Thana- Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yugank Pansari S/o Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Miathlesh Pansari, R/o Village And Post Surpa, Thana- Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Himashi Pansari D/o Tiku Ram Pansari Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian Respondent No. 1 Smt. Miathlesh Pansari, R/o Village And Post Surpa, Thana- Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. … Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-applicants : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 may kindly be seta side, and the trial court may kindly be directed to decide the case on its own merits as early as possible, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the Applicant and Non-Applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 07.05.2006 as per social customs, and out of the wedlock Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The Applicant alleges that he was ousted from the matrimonial home by Non-Applicant No. 1 with the support of his father, compelling him to take shelter in the garage of his employer where he works as a mechanic helper, earning approximately Rs.5,000/- per month. Owing to the alleged acts of cruelty by Non- Applicant No. 1, the Applicant instituted proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, which remain pending before the Family Court, Durg. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Non-Applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2021, along with an application for interim maintenance, alleging that the Applicant has been living separately since 15.09.2013, is not maintaining her or the children, and has filed the divorce petition to keep another woman, thereby seeking Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. The Applicant filed his written statement denying all allegations and asserting that he had been driven out of the house and that Non-Applicant No. 1 is residing in the matrimonial home, cultivating the agricultural land belonging to him. During counseling on 10.12.2021, the Applicant expressed willingness to pay Rs.2,000/- per month, but Non- 3 Applicant No. 1 declined the proposal. Thereafter, without calling for income afÏdavits from either party as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Family Court, relying only on the pleadings, passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 directing the Applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month is unsustainable, as the non-applicants have continuously been residing in the applicant’s house since the date of marriage, whereas the applicant himself was ousted in 2013, therefore, the finding that they are entitled to claim maintenance is erroneous. It is further submitted that specific allegations of adulterous conduct were made against Non-Applicant No. 1, and in such circumstances, she is not legally entitled to maintenance. Counsel submits that the Family Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of calling for income afÏdavits from both parties as directed in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and instead passed the order solely on the basis of pleadings, rendering the decision legally infirm. It is contended that the applicant’s income was neither proved nor established by the non-applicant, on the contrary, the documents filed by the applicant show that the non- applicant was unwilling to reside with him without sufÏcient cause, disentitling her to maintenance. It is further urged that the Family Court overlooked the applicant’s limited earnings as a mechanic 4 helper and failed to appreciate that he was driven out of the matrimonial home by Non-Applicant No. 1 with the support of his father-in-law. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, in the face of evidence suggesting refusal by the non-applicant to live with the applicant, and contrary to settled legal principles. Hence the impugned interim maintenance order is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in awarding interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Non-Applicant and the minor children. The marriage between the parties dated 07.05.2006 and the paternity of Non-Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 being undisputed, the statutory obligation of the Applicant to maintain his wife and children stands firmly established. The allegations raised by the Applicant that he was ousted from the matrimonial home or that the Non-Applicant No. 1 is cultivating his agricultural land are matters requiring detailed trial and cannot defeat the immediate right to subsistence under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, after noting that the Applicant himself expressed readiness during 5 counseling to pay Rs.2,000/- per month, rightly inferred his capacity to contribute towards maintenance despite his claim of earning only Rs.5,000/- per month as a helper. The pendency of divorce proceedings and allegations of cruelty or counter-allegations of the wife’s conduct do not, at the interim stage, disentitle the Non- Applicant No. 1 or the children from receiving maintenance. Even though income afÏdavits were not filed, the Family Court was justified in granting a reasonable and modest amount based on the pleadings and circumstances to ensure that the dependents do not remain without means of livelihood during litigation. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 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 144 of BNSS, preferably within a period of three months, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan