1 2026:CGHC:5563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 475 of 2024 1 - Smt. Namita Pandey W/o Shri Nitin Paney Aged About 44 Years R/o House Of Smt. Rajeshwari Tiwari, In Front Of Government School (Atmanand School), Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahisl And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Master Shivansh Pandey, S/o Shri Nitin Pandey, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian His Mother Namely Smt. Namita Pandey. R/o House Of Smt. Rajeshwari Tiwari, In Front Of Government School (Atmanand School), Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahisl And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Nitin Pandey (Assistant Professor) Aged About 46 Years, W/o Shri Mansukh Lal Pandey, R/o In Front Of Khemraj Provision Stores Lane, Shanti Vihar Colony, Daganaiya Raipur Chhattisgarh OfÏce Address - Assistant Professor, Subject -History, Government Dudhadhari Bajrang College, Near Dani Girls School, Kalibadi, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur may kindly be modified and amount of interim maintenance may be enhanced as per terms of the application, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant No.1–wife along with her minor son filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance as well as interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per month. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 18.05.2013, and out of the wedlock applicant No.2 was born on 12.03.2014. It was alleged that soon after the birth of the child, the applicant–wife was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and his family members on account of domestic disputes and dowry demands, and since 21.10.2022 the respondent has stopped cohabiting with her, as a result of which she is residing at her parental house at Bilaspur along with the minor child. It was further pleaded that the Applicant–wife has no independent source of income and the minor child is studying in Birla Open Mind International School, Bilaspur, whereas the respondent is employed as an Assistant Professor in a Government College earning about Rs.90,000–95,000/- per month. The respondent filed his reply denying the allegations and contended that the applicant–wife is living separately without lawful 3 cause, that his net income after deductions is about Rs.57,700/- per month, and that he has additional responsibility of maintaining his parents. Upon hearing the parties on the interim application, the learned Family Court, by order, granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant No.1–wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the minor child, totaling Rs.9,000/- per month, a very meagre amount. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order, so far as the quantum of interim maintenance is concerned, is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the present case and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate that the respondent husband is an Assistant Professor in a Government College drawing a handsome monthly salary of about Rs.70,692/-, and despite such income, a very meagre amount of interim maintenance has been awarded to the applicants. The learned Family Court erred in considering deductions towards bank loan and other liabilities of the respondent as a ground for awarding lesser maintenance, which cannot legally diminish his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. It is further submitted that the Applicant-wife is solely responsible for maintaining the minor child, who is studying in Class-IV at Birla Open Minds International School, Bilaspur, and is bearing all educational and day-to-day expenses, including medical treatment for the child’s eye ailment, yet an inadequate sum of only Rs.4,000/- per month has been granted towards the child’s maintenance. The learned Family 4 Court also failed to consider that the applicant-wife, though residing at her parental house, still requires sufÏcient maintenance to meet her daily necessities and to provide a reasonable standard of living to the minor child. He also submits that the income of the respondent and the actual needs of the Applicants, the interim maintenance awarded is grossly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced, as at least a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month ought to have been granted. Hence, the impugned order calls for modification and enhancement of interim maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, afÏdavits and material placed on record by both the parties, has rightly passed the impugned order granting interim maintenance. The learned Family Court has correctly taken into account the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the fact that applicant No.2 is a minor child residing with the applicant No.1, and the respective income and liabilities of the respondent, who is employed as an Assistant Professor in a Government College. The learned Family Court has exercised its judicial discretion by striking a fair balance between the needs of the applicant-wife and the minor child on one hand and the financial obligations and responsibilities of the respondent on the other. The interim maintenance awarded, namely Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to the minor child, is 5 reasonable, just and in consonance with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., 6. Considering the submission 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan