1 2025:CGHC:60259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1507 of 2025 Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Gajendra Sharma Aged About 35 Years Presently R/o Rajapara, Near Bagh Talab, Raigarh, Tahsil And District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Gajendra Sharma S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Sharma Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Service, R/o Charpara, Post - Arjuni, Police Station And Tahsil - Sakti, Present Revenue District - Sakti Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Dansena, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act and set-aside the order dated 03.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-P-1) passed by learned Principal) Judge, Family Court, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Raigarh in Criminal MJC Case No. 107/2023, and in effect allow the application for grant of interim maintenance, in toto, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded spouses, having married on 22.02.2016 at Raigarh, and thereafter resided together in their matrimonial home. On 15.10.2024, the applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance, alleging persistent cruelty, unlawful dowry demands, physical assaults, humiliation, character assassination, and eventual expulsion from the matrimonial home on 12–13.10.2019 by the respondent and his family members, despite repeated efforts of her relatives to restore matrimonial harmony. She asserted that she has been residing with her aged parents since her ouster and had also lodged a written complaint on 04.11.2019 before the City Kotwali Police Station. The applicant further pleaded that she is employed only on a contractual basis in the OfÏce of the Chief Medical and Health OfÏcer, Raigarh Municipal Corporation, earning Rs.13,650/- per month, which is insufÏcient to meet her living and medical expenses, and that she requires Rs.25,000/- per month for her sustenance. She submitted that the respondent, working as Assistant Grade-III in the Education Department and earning around Rs.35,000/- per month, is financially capable and legally liable to maintain her. Notices were issued, and the respondent filed his reply along with an afÏdavit of 3 income and expenditure denying the allegations and seeking dismissal of the application. However, by the impugned order dated 03.09.2025, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant’s prayer for interim maintenance solely on the ground that she is employed and earning Rs.13,650 per month. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is perverse and unsustainable in law as the learned. Court below has failed to make an objective assessment of interim maintenance as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. It is submitted that the Court below rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioner is earning, without considering the criteria laid down by the Apex Court, including the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife, her limited contractual income, and the financial capacity of the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working purely on a contractual basis with a meagre honorarium of Rs.13,650 per month, whereas the respondent is a permanent government servant earning substantially more, and therefore the petitioner cannot maintain the standard of living she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The learned court below failed to appreciate that even an earning wife is entitled to maintenance if her income is insufÏcient for her sustenance. It is lastly contended that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and has acted with material irregularity, thereby warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings, material placed on record, and the respective afÏdavits of income and expenditure, has rightly rejected the applicant’s prayer for interim maintenance by its order dated 03.09.2025. The Court correctly observed that the applicant is admittedly employed and earning a monthly income of Rs.13,650, which establishes that she is not without means and is capable of maintaining herself at this stage of the proceedings. The Family Court further took note of the fact that interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended only for a spouse who is unable to sustain herself, and the mere existence of matrimonial discord or allegations of past cruelty does not automatically entitle a financially independent spouse to interim relief. The Court, therefore, exercised its discretion judiciously and within the parameters of law, arriving at the conclusion that the applicant’s admitted earnings negate the requirement of granting interim maintenance. The impugned order reflects a proper appreciation of facts and the statutory mandate. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan