1 CGHC010132752025 2026:CGHC:34577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 526 of 2025 Mrs. Namita Kurian W/o Mr. Kurian George Aged About 73 Years R/o Street No. 22 Sector 10 Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Mr. Kurian George S/o Mr. Ouseph Vrkey Aged About 78 Years R/o Perena Krishi Bhawan, Urla Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06 /08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Case No.19/2025, whereby AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22.05.1972. The applicant, aged about 73 years, filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 125 of the CrPC) before the Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance from the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain her. It was pleaded by the applicant that both the parties are retired employees of Bhilai Steel Plant and that she has no sufficient independent means to maintain herself and to meet her medical and other day-to-day expenses. According to the applicant, the respondent is receiving pension and other benefits and is also earning income from a poultry farm, agricultural land and other sources, his total monthly income being approximately Rs.2,00,000/-. The respondent, in his reply and affidavit filed before the Family Court, disclosed that he owns about 8.6 acres of agricultural land and two residential houses situated at Urla, Durg; earns approximately Rs.6–6.5 lakhs per annum from agricultural land; and receives Rs.25,000/- per month under the 3 Chhattisgarh Government's “Loktantra Senani Samman Nidhi” Scheme. The learned Family Court, Durg, vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed in Case No.19/2025, partly allowed the application for interim maintenance and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the applicant during the pendency of the proceedings. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of interim maintenance, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, without properly appreciating the material available on record and the settled principles governing the grant of interim maintenance. The quantum of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the applicant is grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the respondent's financial capacity, despite material indicating that the respondent earns more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month from various sources. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant's advanced age of 73 years, her deteriorating health, medical expenses and lack of any independent source of income. The applicant, who has been deserted by the respondent, is residing alone and requires financial assistance for her day-to-day living as well as medical care, which cannot be met by the meagre amount awarded. He also submits that the amount of interim maintenance awarded is insufficient to enable the applicant to maintain a reasonable standard of living, particularly in a 4 metropolitan city. It is a settled principle of law that a wife is entitled to maintain the same standard of living as she enjoyed in her matrimonial home, and the impugned order, being contrary to the settled legal position, deserves to be set-aside and the quantum of interim maintenance suitably enhanced. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the applicant and awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant, holding that although the respondent has disputed the marital relationship by claiming that the parties were in a live-in relationship since 22.05.1972, such disputed questions can only be decided after appreciation of evidence during trial. The learned Family Court further held that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, even a woman in a live-in relationship can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Taking into consideration that the parties are living separately, the advanced age and financial condition of the applicant, the financial status of the respondent, and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Ors., the learned Family Court found 5 the applicant entitled to interim maintenance and accordingly directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month till disposal of the main application. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to modify the impugned order is refused. 9. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of two months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil