1 2026:CGHC:5527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 906 of 2024 Vaibhav Kalele S/o- Shri Yashvant Kalele Aged About 44 Years R/o - Krishna Nagar, Near Bamleshwar Mandir, Daganiya, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Manan Kalele S/o Vaibhav Kalele Aged About 11 Years Through Their Mother / Natural Guardian- Smt. Prachi Kalele, W/o Vaibhav Kalele, R/o Jainam Heights, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Vidit Kalele S/o Vaibhav Kalele Aged About 4 Years Through Their Mother / Natural Guardian- Smt. Prachi Kalele, W/o Vaibhav Kalele, R/o Jainam Heights, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Smt. Prachi Kalele W/o Vaibhav Kalele Aged About 40 Years R/o Jainam Heights, Lalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Purnima Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 08.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents–wife and her two minor children filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant–husband seeking maintenance, along with a separate application for interim maintenance. It was pleaded that the marriage between the respondent No.3 and the applicant was solemnized on 07.07.2011 at Raipur according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the wedlock respondent Nos.1 and 2 were born. The respondents alleged that soon after marriage the applicant subjected the respondent No.3 to cruelty and quarrels, and ultimately on 16.07.2022 she along with the minor children was forced to leave the matrimonial home and has since been residing at her parental house at Raipur. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.3 has no independent source of income, that the minor children are school-going, and that respondent No.2 is suffering from serious congenital ailments requiring continuous and costly medical treatment, which expenses are being borne by her father, whereas the applicant is gainfully employed and earning about Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply denying all allegations of cruelty and contending that the respondents left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient cause and are not entitled to maintenance. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed 3 the applicant–husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C,. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law as well as facts, inasmuch as the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and material available on record. It is contended that in his reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the applicant specifically denied the allegation that he had thrown the respondents out of the matrimonial home and clearly pleaded that respondent No.03, of her own free will and volition, left the applicant and started residing at her parental house along with the children. It is further submitted that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.03 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are nothing but a counter-blast to the matrimonial proceedings filed by the applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Court also committed a gross error in disbelieving the fact that respondent No.03 is an earning lady, being a qualified Physiotherapist, earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further urged that the learned Court failed to consider that respondent No.03 had already received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- up to 24.01.2017 as permanent maintenance towards the education and other needs of respondent No.01. The learned Court also ignored the pendency of the applicant’s application under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of respondent Nos.01 4 and 02. It is further submitted that despite specific denial by the applicant, the learned Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.02 is not suffering from any congenital ailment and that the applicant never subjected respondent No.03 to cruelty; rather, it was respondent No.03 who used to harass the parents of the applicant. It is lastly contended that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the respondents only to harass the applicant and to extract undue benefit, and even otherwise no medical documents whatsoever have been filed to substantiate the alleged ailment of respondent No.02, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. 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 Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur, (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 due consideration of the pleadings, rival submissions and the material available on record, has rightly exercised jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, as the same is based on a proper appreciation of facts and law. The learned Family Court has correctly taken note of the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the existence of two minor children 5 born out of the wedlock, and their undisputed dependency. The Court has also rightly considered the pleadings regarding the respondent No.3 having no independent source of income, the minor children being school-going, and the specific needs of respondent No.2, and, at the same time, has taken a balanced view of the applicant responsibility to maintain his children. The grant of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.1 and 2, from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is reasonable, just and in consonance with the settled principles governing interim maintenance, intended to prevent destitution and ensure the basic sustenance and welfare of the minor children during the pendency of the proceedings. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan