1 2026:CGHC:5568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 348 of 2024 Tejeshwar @ Sager Dewangan S/o Late Shri Kheduram Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o Sikolabhata, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sharda Dewangan W/o Tejeshwar Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Sikolabhata, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Present R/o Village Bangoli, P.S. Kharora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. … respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 05/3/2024 may kindly be set aside and the revision may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent are legally married, having solemnized their marriage on 02.07.2021. The respondent/wife filed an interim application under RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant’s family, forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home on 04.07.2022, and has no independent income. It was further contended that the applicant is a Civil Engineer and Architect with a family business earning approximately Rs.10,00,000/- per year. The applicant/husband filed a reply denying the allegations, contending that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home, did not wish to reside with him, and that her Section 125 application was filed to harass him after he filed a petition under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act on 13.09.2023. It was also stated that the respondent is educated, employed, and runs a grocery store. After considering the pleadings, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favor of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Family Court is contrary to law and facts, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the respondent is living separately without any sufÏcient cause along with the children, which the Learned Family Court failed to properly consider. He further submits that the Court ignored the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 2 SCC 324) regarding maintenance, and that the allegations in the Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3 application are vague and ambiguous, failing to disclose a specific claim. It is also contended that the respondent filed the proceedings with the sole intention of harassing the Applicant, as he had earlier filed an application under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. The respondent is an educated lady running a grocery store, and is also liable for the repayment of a home loan availed by her late father, which demonstrates her financial capacity. The impugned order granting Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance disregards the law that maintenance should generally not exceed one-third of the income and is therefore excessive. He submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself, and that the application was motivated by malafide intent to harass the Applicant and his family. In view of the above, the impugned order is unjust, perverse, and liable to be set aside, and the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in favor of the respondent/wife, is perfectly justified and in accordance with law. It is submitted that the respondent was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant’s family, was forcibly ousted from the matrimonial home, and has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant/husband is a Civil Engineer and Architect 4 with a family business, earning a substantial income of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- per year. The learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings and material on record, rightly exercised its discretion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant interim maintenance to ensure that the respondent’s immediate needs are met pending the final disposal of the maintenance application. The order is in line with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 2 SCC 324), reflecting the financial disparity and the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, and therefore, the interim maintenance order requires no interference. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 8. 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. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan