1 2026:CGHC:5537 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 806 of 2024 Mohsin Ahmed S/o Shri Mushtaq Ahmed Aged About 36 Years R/o Beside Badi Masjid Barron Bazar, Vidya Nagar, District And Tahsil- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Amreena Fatima Aged About 10 Years Through Her Natural Guardian- Mother- Sultana Begam, R/o- Shri Fajlur Rahman, Bhaji Mandi, Beside Tiwari Gas Godam, Kamthi, Tahsil- Kamthi, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. 2 - Anam Fatima Aged About 06 Years, Through Her Natural Guardian- Mother- Sultana Begam, W/o Shri Mushtaq Ahmed, D/o Shri Fajlur Rahman, Aged About 30 Years, R/o- Shri Fajlur Rahman, Bhaji Mandi, Beside Tiwari Gas Godam, Kamthi, Tahsil- Kamthi, District Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate. For Non-applicants : None. 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 most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased call the record and set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Raipur, in Criminal M.C.C.No. District Raipur (C.G.), passed 132/2024 and revision petition may be allowed in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants have filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicants are the legitimate minor children of the applicant and students with no independent source of income. The legal responsibility for their maintenance lies with the applicant. As the applicant has neglected to maintain them, the non-applicants are residing with their divorced mother at their maternal home since 22.08.2021, and they are facing serious financial hardship for their sustenance. Their mother is a divorced homemaker with no source of income. The non-applicants are minors and are facing difÏculties in meeting expenses related to medicines, education, and daily necessities. It is stated that the applicant runs a traditional family shop dealing in safes and lock-and-key work in Golbazar Market, Raipur, earning about ₹1,600 per day, i.e., approximately ₹48,000 per month, and is fully capable of maintaining the non-applicants. Therefore, a prayer has been made to grant ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance before the learned Family Court. 3. In reply, the applicant has denied paragraphs 1 to 4 of the application. It is contended that due to the cruel behavior and frequent quarrels caused by the non-applicants’ guardian mother, Sultana Begam, the applicant has developed mental illness and his mental condition often becomes unstable. He is undergoing psychiatric treatment at Mekahara Hospital. Due to his mental condition, he is presently unable to earn a livelihood. It is further stated that the income of the applicant 3 has been exaggerated by the non-applicants’ mother and is a matter of evidence, therefore, interim maintenance cannot be determined at this stage. The applicant has also requested that his reply to the main application be read as part of this reply to avoid repetition. Accordingly, he has prayed that the interim maintenance application be dismissed with costs. 4. After hearing both parties and considering the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹3000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and ₹3,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (total 6000/- per month) from the date of application. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly consider the material facts and documents placed on record, particularly the medical certificate showing that the applicant is suffering from mental illness, due to which he is unable to work and earn his livelihood. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court also ignored the school certificate and other documents adduced before the Family Court and proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the learned Family Court did not appreciate that the non-applicants are residing separately without sufÏcient cause after leaving the matrimonial home of the applicant and, therefore, they are not entitled to interim maintenance. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the impugned order granting interim maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month is liable to be set aside by this Court. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 3000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the non- applicants are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal