1 2026:CGHC:2449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 74 of 2026 Jugesh Patel S/o Mangatram Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Renki, Bhadrapara, Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) ... applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Patel W/o Jugesh Patel Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Vijay Nagar, Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Arambh Patel Aged About 1 Years 6 Months, S/o Jugesh Patel Minor Through Guardian Mother, Residents Of Vijay Nagar, Bhanpuri, P.S. Khamtarai, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Kunwar Mayank Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family 2 Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1405/2024, whereby, the learned Family Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that Section 144 of the BNSS before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, seeking interim maintenance against the applicant, which was registered as Case No. 1405/2024. It was stated that the marriage between the applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) was solemnized on 23.01.2022 according to Hindu rites, and a male child (respondent No. 2) was born on 16.01.2023. The respondents alleged that after marriage the applicant subjected the wife to mental and physical cruelty, suspected her character, assaulted her, neglected her during pregnancy, and ultimately drove both the wife and child out of the matrimonial home, compelling them to reside at the wife’s maternal house. A complaint was also made before Mahila Thana, Raipur, but the applicant refused to keep the wife with him. The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations, stating that he is willing to reside with the respondents, that the wife is living separately of her own accord, and that she is educated and earning. He further claimed that he has no independent source of income and works only as an agricultural labourer on undivided ancestral land. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 24.10.2025, 3 partly allowed the application and granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor child, which order is challenged by the applicant as being beyond his earning capacity. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case while granting interim maintenance, which is excessive and not in consonance with the actual earning capacity of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court further erred in ignoring the material fact that respondent No. 1 (Wife) and her family members suppressed, prior to marriage, that she was suffering from a venereal disease in a communicable form. Despite social counseling held on 02.03.2023 in the presence of respectable members of both communities, the respondent and her family failed to explain the suppression and walked out of the meeting, which clearly indicates concealment of the said fact. The Court also failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1 is living separately from the applicant out of her own free will, without any justifiable cause. He also submits that the learned Court below also failed to consider that the applicant is merely an agricultural labourer working on undivided ancestral land measuring about 7 acres, jointly owned by 12 brothers, and has no independent or sufficient source of 4 income. Due to his limited earnings, he is not in a position to pay the quantum of interim maintenance awarded. Moreover, the applicant has already filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on valid grounds, which was not duly considered while passing the impugned order. 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 has granted Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C observing that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 is their minor son, and that they are residing separately from the applicant. The learned Family Court, on a prima facie assessment, held that it is the legal duty of the applicant to maintain his wife and child and, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court, partly allowed the application for interim maintenance without finally adjudicating upon the disputed questions regarding income, conduct of parties, and merits of the case. 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil