1 2025:CGHC:54362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1351 of 2025 Rahul Choudhary S/o Pashupati Choudhary Aged About 33 Years R/o Narth Subhash Pali, Manoharpur, Distt. Hugli, Kolkata, Pin Code 712311. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Aarti Choudhary W/o Rahul Choudhary Aged About 33 Years R/o Narth Subhash Pali, Manoharpur, Distt. And P.S. Dankuni, Distt. Hugli, Pin Code 712311, Presently R/o Dimrapal At Distt. Hospital, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Bastar, District – Jagdalpur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.171/2024, whereby the learned KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), along with an interim application, stating that the applicant and the respondent were married on 30.01.2020 in accordance with the customary rites and rituals. It has been alleged that thereafter, the respondent and his relatives threatened her in the name of inferior dowry items and also assaulted her. When she opposed such acts, the applicant and his relatives subjected her to physical and mental cruelty on various occasions. She further stated that although she made efforts to resume her matrimonial life, the same failed, and consequently, she has been residing separately at her parental home. It is further pleaded that she is working as an Accountant and Data Entry Operator at Dimarpal Hospital, Jagdalpur, on a contractual basis and earns 20,000 per month, whereas the ₹ applicant is employed as a Mechanical Engineer with a monthly income of Rs.2,00,000/-. Despite this, he has neglected his responsibility towards her, due to which she is facing financial hardship. On this basis, she has filed an interim maintenance application seeking Rs.50,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying the allegations made by the respondent. He pleaded that the respondent lived in the 3 matrimonial home only for 26 days and, during that short period, made several false and serious allegations against him and his family members. He further submitted that the respondent is a Government employee drawing a monthly salary of Rs.21,967/- and also earns an additional income of Rs.20,000/- per month from tuition work, thereby being capable of maintaining herself. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay an interim maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the conduct of the respondent, who made false allegations against the applicant and his family members and left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause, choosing instead to reside comfortably at her parental house. The Court also failed to consider that the respondent voluntarily opted to live separately to enjoy a luxurious lifestyle and, with that intention, levelled false accusations against the applicant’s family. Further, the Court ignored the respondent’s financial status, as she is a Government employee earning Rs.21,967/- per month and also derives an additional income of Rs.20,000/- per month from tuition work, making her fully capable of maintaining herself. He further submits that the learned Family Court further erred in partly allowing the respondent’s interim 4 maintenance application under Section 144 of the BNSS, despite the applicant earning only Rs.40,600/- per month from private employment and being responsible for the maintenance of his aged parents. Hence, the impugned order is contrary to the material on record and is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the applicant and respondent are residing separately following matrimonial disputes. Taking into account the applicant’s limited income of Rs.20,000/- per month from her contractual job and the respondent’s comparatively higher earning capacity, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance till final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. 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. 5 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal