1 2026:CGHC:4428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 206 of 2024 Smt. Tukeshwari Netam W/o Virendra Kumar Thakur Aged About 30 Years At Present R/o Vill Korway, Post O,ce Chilfy, P.S. Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Virendra Kumar Thakur S/o Dashrath Thakur Aged About 30 Years R/o Street Avenue E Block-06, B-Sector 6, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify/enhance impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned family Court Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.J.C. No. 388/2023 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and also may kindly be granted interim maintenance amount sought by the applicant in interim maintenance application for seeking granting interim maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant 8led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, pleading that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 21.04.2022 at Village Korway in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife, it was alleged that within about 8fteen days of marriage, the respondent started subjecting the applicant to mental harassment and cruelty on account of unlawful demands of 10 acres of land and cash of Rs. 50,00,000/-, and despite counselling proceedings held at the Women Cell Centre, Bemetara, the respondent failed to mend his conduct, compelling the applicant to leave the matrimonial home, it was further pleaded that the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent is employed as an Engineer in the o,ce of the Executive Engineer (E/M), P.W.D. Division, Durg (C.G.) and is earning about Rs. 70,000/- per month, and on these grounds interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month was sought, upon notice, the respondent appeared and 8led his written statement denying the allegations, and after hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, Bemetara, by impugned order 3 dated 09.01.2024, granted interim maintenance of only Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record, inasmuch as the Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and harassment meted out by the respondent and that she has no independent source of income to sustain her livelihood. It is contended that grant of interim maintenance of merely Rs. 2,000/- per month is wholly inadequate and insu,cient for survival, whereas the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the respondent is working as an Engineer, earning a net salary of about Rs. 48,119/- per month, as reDected from the salary slip placed on record, and is 8nancially well-oE and fully capable of paying the interim maintenance amount as sought. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court committed a grave error in assessing the income of the respondent and overlooked the material evidence regarding his 8nancial capacity, while ignoring the helpless condition of the applicant, who has no means of livelihood. It is also urged that the respondent never made any sincere eEort to cohabit with the applicant, whereas the applicant was always willing to reside at the matrimonial home, and that suppression of material facts was on the part of the respondent; therefore, the impugned order granting meagre interim maintenance suEers from perversity and deserves interference, and 4 the interim maintenance amount is liable to be suitably enhanced in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Bemetara, upon consideration of the pleadings and material placed on record by both the parties, after aEording due opportunity of hearing, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant by order dated 09.01.2024, the Court duly took into account the prima facie marital relationship between the parties, the allegations and counter-allegations raised by them, and the 8nancial capacity of the respondent at the interim stage, and while balancing the respective claims, found it appropriate to award a modest amount towards interim maintenance without 8nally adjudicating the disputed facts, which are required to be proved during the course of trial, therefore, the impugned order is reasoned, legal and in consonance with the settled principles governing grant of interim maintenance. 5 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the 8nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not 8nd any illegality or in8rmity 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. O,ce is directed to send a certi8ed copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan