1 2026:CGHC:9017 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 265 of 2026 Anil Sinha S/o Shri Hari Ram Sinha Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Account Of Purchaser And Seller Of The Land Resident Of Village Kesra, Post- Tarighat, P.S. Ranitarai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Other Address - Near Maharaj Kirana Store, Navrang Chowk, Near Atal Chowk, Boriya Khurd Basti, P.S. Tikrapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sharda Sinha W/o Anil Sinha Aged About 34 Years R/o Chandani Chowk, Mova Saddu, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20 /02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has <led this criminal revision against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.989/2025, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 5000/- per month to the non- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant as interim maintenance till <nal disposal in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts, as emerging from the record are that the non-applicant <led an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance, stating that the non-applicant solemnized marriage with the applicant on 26.04.2012. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant started harassing and mentally torturing the non-applicant on account of insuBcient dowry and also demanded money from her. Due to the cruelty inCicted by the applicant, the non-applicant left the matrimonial home and is presently residing at her parental house. The non-applicant has no independent source of income. The applicant is working as an Account Manager behind the LIC OBce and earns approximately Rs. 45,000/- per month. It is further alleged that the applicant owns agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 4–5 lakhs per annum. Thus, according to the non-applicant, the applicant's total monthly income is approximately Rs. 80,000/-. Hence, the non-applicant <led an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month along with an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. 4. After issuance of notice, the applicant <led his reply and denied all the averments made in the application as well as in the interim maintenance application. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, vide order dated 13.01.2026, the learned Family Court concerned granted interim maintenance in favour of non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay ₹5,000/- per month to non-applicant as interim 3 maintenance till <nal disposal of the case. Hence, the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned interim maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant as well as the non-applicant. It is further submitted that the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial house without any suBcient cause and has made no eGort to resume cohabitation with the applicant and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS. It is also submitted that the non-applicant has neither produced any documentary evidence regarding the income of the applicant nor proved the alleged income, yet the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is not willing to live with the applicant and continue the marital relationship and therefore the impugned order (Annexure A-1) deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order in the absence of the applicant and failed to properly appreciate the material available on record. It is further submitted that the maintenance amount awarded is on the higher side and is liable to be modi<ed. It is also submitted that the non- applicant has failed to produce any documents regarding the income of the applicant, whereas the applicant is dependent upon his parents for his livelihood. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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 ₹5000/- per month to non-applicant, 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 <nal disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. OBce is directed to send a copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal