1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 57 of 2023 Mahesh Manrakhan Sonwani S/o Chetan Sonwani Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kodomeri, P.O.Bisora, Thana And Tehsil Bailtukari, District Nuapada (Odisha) Presently At Vaishnav Colony (Balodabazar ) District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Maheshwari Sonwani W/o Mahesh Manrakhan Sonwani Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kodomeri, P.O.Bisora, Thana And Tahsil Bailtukari, District Nuapada (Odisha). Presently Residing At Village- Pahanda, P.O. And Tehsil- Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Minor Prince Krishna S/o Mahesh Sonwani Aged About 6 Years Represented By Respondent No.1, R/o Village Kodomeri, P.O. Bisora, Thana And Tehsil Bailtukari, District Nuapada (Odisha). Presently Residing At Village- Pahanda, P.O. And Tehsil- Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Minor Laxmipriya S/o Mahesh Manrakhun Sonwani Aged About 4 Years Represented By Respondent No.1, R/o Village Kodomeri, P.O. Bisora, Thana And Tehsil Bailtukari, District Nuapada (Odisha). Presently Residing At Village- Pahanda, P.O. And Tehsil- Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the interim maintenance amount awarded vide order 17.11.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Balodabazar-Bhatapara(C.G.), passed in MJC No. 180/2021be quashed and set aside. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order as it may deem 2t, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents ;led an application under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant, who is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.04.2015 at Village Pandha, Tehsil Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the parties initially resided together at Village Kadomeri, Odisha, and thereafter shifted to Balodabazar, where they lived together for some time. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and the respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home and started residing separately along with the 3 minor children, alleging cruelty, dowry demand, and neglect on the part of the applicant, and sought maintenance of Rs.18,000/- per month. The applicant, on the other hand, disputed the allegations and contended that respondent No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home. During the pendency of the proceedings, the learned Family Court, by order dated 17.11.2022, granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent No.2, and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3, holding that the applicant has a prima facie responsibility to maintain his wife and children and that the reasons for their living separately are matters of evidence to be adjudicated during trial. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the fact that the applicant is working as a sta@ member in a small clinic and is earning a meagre monthly salary of about Rs.7,000/-, and therefore is not in a position to pay a total maintenance amount of Rs.4,200/- per month. It is further submitted that the impugned order is perverse, unsustainable in law, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel contends that the applicant does not own any agricultural land and has no income from such source, as erroneously alleged by the respondents in their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also urged that the learned Court below mechanically rejected the grounds raised by the applicant and passed the impugned order without proper application of mind, 4 without assessing the actual ;nancial capacity of the applicant, and without assigning cogent reasons as to how the quantum of maintenance was determined. Hence, the impugned order deserves interference. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, (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, after carefully considering the pleadings of both the parties and the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned interim order dated 17.11.2022. The learned Court has duly taken note of the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the parentage of respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the prima facie responsibility of the applicant to maintain his wife and minor children. At the interim stage, the learned Family Court has correctly observed that the rival allegations regarding cruelty, desertion, and the reasons for the parties living separately are matters of evidence to be ;nally adjudicated during the course of trial. The quantum of interim maintenance awarded, namely Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1, Rs.1,200/- to respondent No.2, and Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.3, is reasonable, modest, and commensurate with the circumstances of the case. The impugned 5 order is a reasoned and well-considered order passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the ;nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in;rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi;ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan