1 2026:CGHC:26159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 768 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sarita Gupta W/o Ramashankar Gupta Aged About 55 Years R/o Near Ramjanki Mandir Barela, P.S. Tahsil Jarhagaon, District Mungeli,(C.G.) 2 - Ku. Swarnlata D/o Ramashankar Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Ramjanki Mandir Barela, P.S. Tahsil Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) ...Applicants versus Ramashankar Gupta S/o Heeralal Gupta Aged About 57 Years R/o Near Semarchuwa Mod, Annapurna Pustkalya Barela, P.S., Tahsil Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.K. Chandraker on behalf of Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. Upon due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry are hereby overruled. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.29 11:47:55 +0530 2 Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 18/2026, whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance has been partly allowed and interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month has been awarded to applicant No.1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in brief, is that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1986. Out of the said wedlock, three daughters, namely Annapurna Gupta, Pushplata Gupta and Swarnlata Gupta, and one son, namely Shubham Gupta, were born. It is alleged that the respondent used to subject applicant No.1 to mental and physical cruelty, abuse her in filthy language, and assault her. According to the applicants, on 25.06.2019, the respondent drove them out of the matrimonial home and, since then, applicant No.1 has been residing separately along with applicant No.2. It is further alleged that applicant No.1, aged about 55 years, is suffering from illness and has no independent source of income, while applicant No.2 is a student preparing for competitive examinations and is also dependent upon applicant No.1. The applicants claim that the respondent is employed as a Headmaster in a Government school and is drawing a salary of approximately Rs.1,08,544/- per month. It is further alleged that the respondent is running a business in the name of Annapurna Book Depot and earning an additional income of about 3 Rs.50,000/- per month. On the aforesaid allegations, the applicants filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. During the pendency of the proceedings, the applicants also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. The respondent opposed the claim by denying the allegations and contending that he had neither subjected the applicants to cruelty nor driven them out of the house and that he was already maintaining them. Thereafter, by order dated 09.04.2026, the learned Trial Court dismissed the interim maintenance application of applicant No.2 and partly allowed the application of applicant No.1 by awarding interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondent is working as a Headmaster and is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month by way of salary. Despite having sufficient means, he has neglected and refused to maintain the applicants. It is contended that applicant No.1 has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Learned counsel further submits that although the present revision has been preferred by both the applicants, applicant No.2 is not pressing her claim for interim maintenance. It is argued that considering the social status of the parties, the income of the respondent, and the standard of living enjoyed by the family, the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month awarded to 4 applicant No.1 is grossly inadequate and deserves enhancement. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the amount of interim maintenance awarded to applicant No.1 deserves to be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has taken note of the allegation of applicant No.1 that she, along with her daughter, was driven out of the matrimonial home by the respondent in the year 2019 and has since been residing separately while facing financial hardship. The learned Family Court has also considered the fact that, though the applicants alleged that they were forced to leave the company of the respondent in the year 2019, the application seeking maintenance was filed only on 24.01.2026. It further transpires from the impugned order that applicant No.2 is employed with HDFC Bank and is posted at Takhatpur. This factual aspect could not be disputed by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and has also applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Rajnesh 5 v. Neha”, 2021 (2) SCC 324, wherein the parameters for determining maintenance, including the income and liabilities of the parties, their financial status, reasonable needs of the claimant, and the standard of living enjoyed during the subsistence of marriage, have been elaborately laid down. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance to applicant No.1. 9. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case document annexed with the present criminal revision and the order passed by the learned family Court, I do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned family Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge vaibhav