1 2025:CGHC:27083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 168 of 2024 Smt. Lakeeta Tamboli W/o Neeraj Tamboli Aged About 27 Years R/o Baloda, Present R/o. C/o. Dhanesh @ Lala Thawait, S/o. Shatrughanlal, Satbahaniya, Mandir Road, Railvihar Colony, Devrikhurd, P.S. Torwa, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Applicant versus Neeraj Tamboli S/o Heeralal Tamboli Aged About 30 Years R/o Baraipara Baloda, P.S. Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 16.08.2023, passed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.24 17:30:10 +0530 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) passed in MJC No. 76/2023, may kindly be set-aside and the application for grant of interim maintenance preferred by the applicant may kindly be allowed. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit, in the interst of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent took place on 18.06.2021 according to the rituals and customs of society at Kotmi Sonar, District Janjgir Champa. The husband works as a constable in the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces. It has been averred that the husband is mentally unfit and is undergoing treatment under a psychiatrist. The in-laws of the applicant used to demand dowry and mentally torture her. The respondent filed a reply and denied all the averments made in the application. He stated that he is the sole breadwinner of the family and his family does not run any business. The applicant has also filed an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month, stating that the husband is working as a constable and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. She further claims that the respondent’s family runs a hotel earning Rs. 10,000–15,000/- per day and also owns 15 acres of agricultural land. The respondent has filed a reply to the interim application, stating that the applicant 3 is willingly residing separately and runs a shop, from which she earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. The learned trial Court considered the averments made by both parties and rejected the applicant-wife’s application on the ground that she has been residing with her parents since 20.07.2022 and filed the application for maintenance only on 30.01.2023. The Court held that it seems she is not in need of interim maintenance, nor is she going through any hardship. During the proceedings before the trial Court, both parties filed their affidavits as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha. A perusal of the affidavits shows that the applicant is not earning any income and is residing with her parents. Furthermore, it is admitted that the respondent-husband is a constable in the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces and, as per records, his family also owns land. 5. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 16.08.2023, rejected the applicant’s claim for interim maintenance on erroneous grounds, without assigning proper reasons. The said order of the learned court is unjust and lacks appropriate justification. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the award of interim maintenance ought to have been granted to the applicant-wife. The applicant has disclosed that the respondent’s family possesses agricultural land and is engaged in a business; however, the respondent has failed to disclose the same in his affidavit. There is a clear and blatant violation of the well-settled principles laid down by 4 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh v. Neha, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, and arbitrary. He submits that the learned trial Court ought to have acknowledged that the respondent is the earning member of the family, and a balance should have been struck while determining and granting interim maintenance to the applicant herein. The learned trial Court has committed a grave error by failing to appreciate Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in its true letter and spirit. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is not earning any income, nor is she willfully residing separately without sufficient cause. The application was merely rejected on the ground of delay in filing, and it was erroneously held that the applicant is not facing any hardship. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the delay in filing the application for maintenance was due to the applicant’s financial hardship, which prevented her from approaching the before the Court earlier. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, as under: “79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801: (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712) this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is 5 conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and the needs of dependent family members he is legally obliged to maintain, as well as any liabilities, must be taken into account while determining the appropriate quantum of maintenance. The Court must consider the standard of living of the husband, along with the effects of inflation and the rising cost of living. The husband’s plea that he has no source of income does not ipso facto absolve him of his moral and legal duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and possesses the necessary educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 6 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]” 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Family Court, Bilaspur District Bilaspur has rightly rejected the application of the applicant preferred under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in MJC No. 76/2023 vide order dated 16.08.2023, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Family Court, Durg, had observed that in Clause No. 05 of the order dated 07.02.1995 passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hukum Singh vs. Satyabhama, Criminal Revision No. 65/1993, it was held that: “It was well settled that the order for payment of interim maintenance allowance could be passed only in the case of great hardship.” The applicant, in her affidavit of assets and liabilities, stated that she was a 27-year-old graduate woman who had been living separately since 20.07.2022 and filed the application for maintenance on 30.01.2023. In relation to her income, she stated “nil” and further claimed that the respondent was employed as a constable and received a monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/-. She also stated that his family earned Rs. 10,000–15,000/- per day from a hotel business, owned 15 acres of agricultural land, and his 7 grandmother received a pension of Rs. 40,000. In contrast, the respondent, in his affidavit of assets and liabilities, stated that he was employed as a constable with a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. He mentioned that the applicant was a graduate, engaged in embroidery and tailoring work, and also operated a Suhaag Bhandar (a bridal shop), while residing with her parents. The respondent submitted his written reply. According to the applicant, she had been residing separately with her parents since 20.07.2022. However, in her affidavit, while she mentioned that she was a graduate and ran a Suhaag Bhandar, she did not explain why there was an immediate need for interim maintenance, especially considering that she had been residing separately since 20.07.2022 but filed the maintenance application only on 30.01.2023. Therefore, it did not appear that the applicant was in urgent need of interim maintenance, or that the absence of such relief would have caused her great hardship. On the contrary, if there had been any delay on the part of the respondent, the applicant could have been awarded maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 30.01.2023. The Family Court, Bilaspur, after considering all these facts rejected the application for interim maintenance filed by the applicant. Therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8 12. Needless to say that the Family Court, Bilaspur is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek