1 2026:CGHC:5775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1147 of 2024 Sunny Dhruwey S/o Shri D. L. Dhruwey Aged About 34 Years R/o H. No. - H-08, Green Orchid, Daldal Seoni, Mowa, P.S.- Pandri, Mowa, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Akansha Dicruz W/o Shri Sunny Dhruwey Aged About 27 Years R/o Kamla Smriti, Ganj Mandi Road, Kapa Lodhipara, Behind Pandey Dairy, Near Avanti Bai Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 365/2024 in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 08.10.2022 in accordance with their community customs and rituals at St. John KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 The Baptist Church, Raipur (C.G.), and no child has been born out of their wedlock. On 06.03.2023, the non-applicant started residing at her parental home along with her parents. Thereafter, the non- applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month for her livelihood, alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the applicant and, being frightened by such acts, she went to reside with her parents. She further alleged that the applicant has sufÏcient income but refused to provide money for her personal and daily expenses, leaving her with no option but to work. 3. The applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court and admitted the factum of marriage but denied all allegations made by the non-applicant. The applicant stated on afÏdavit that his monthly income is not more than ₹20,000/- from his employment at Fundtec Services LLP and he also filed his latest salary slip before the learned Family Court, which is annexed as Annexure A/3. He further stated that the non-applicant herself is employed as an Eye Assistant at Titan Eye, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, earning approximately ₹32,000/- per month and is therefore capable of maintaining herself. The applicant denied the allegation that he refused to give money for daily expenses and stated that on 05.03.2023, when only the applicant and non-applicant were at home, the non-applicant voluntarily left the house stating that she was going to her parental home to celebrate Holi and that she would return thereafter. Later the same day, when the applicant opened 3 the cupboard, he found that jewellery belonging to the non-applicant and her family members as well as jewellery belonging to the applicant’s mother, worth approximately ₹10,00,000/-, was missing. Instead, a receipt of Muthoot Gold Company was found in the cupboard, from which the applicant came to know that a loan had been taken by mortgaging the jewellery without the knowledge of the applicant or his family members. Upon inquiry, the non-applicant and her family members stated that the jewellery was at their house and had been shown to them, but the jewellery was neither shown to the applicant nor returned. The applicant lodged a complaint regarding the missing jewellery. Thereafter, both parties filed their respective afÏdavits in support of their contentions, which are annexed as Annexure A/5 (colly) and Annexure A/6 (colly). 4. After submission of afÏdavits, both parties were given an opportunity to advance arguments. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of ₹6,000/- per month to the non-applicant till final disposal of the case. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he earns only ₹20,000/- per month and is also responsible for maintaining his aged parents and other household expenses, whereas the non- applicant is well educated, earning approximately ₹32,000/- per month and residing with her parents. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 4 regarding financial disclosure afÏdavits. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is a salaried person earning more than the applicant and is fully capable of maintaining herself, yet this vital fact was ignored. The Court, without proper analysis of evidence and witness statements, mechanically directed payment of maintenance. The applicant has limited income and also maintains his aged parents and household expenses, making it financially difÏcult to pay ₹6,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the non-applicant failed to prove cruelty and had left the matrimonial home on her own will, but these facts were not considered. Therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, improper, and liable to be set aside. 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 ₹6,000/- per month to non-applicant-wife 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- applicant is 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 5 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 trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal