1 CGHC010316532026 2026:CGHC:38101 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1106 of 2026 Kamlesh Kumar Ratre S/o Chhanku Ram Ratre, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Baroda, P.S. Manacamp, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Manisha Ratre W/o Kamlesh Kumar Ratre, D/o Kumarram Bandhe, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Vindyavasini Nagar Abhanpur, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been 5led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant criminal revision and set aside the interim order dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) in the interest of justice” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the legally wedded ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.25 16:32:00 +0530 2 husband of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 04.07.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs at Abhanpur, District Raipur. On 03.11.2025, the respondent 5led an application before the learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, along with an application for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings. In the said application, the respondent alleged that after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty, harassment and assault, and further alleged that the applicant had su<cient income from a shop, agricultural land and other sources. 4. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court and 5led a detailed reply, speci5cally denying the false and exaggerated allegations made by the respondent. It was speci5cally pleaded that the respondent was insisting upon a separate residence, frequently quarrelled with the applicant, voluntarily left the matrimonial home, and is an educated person who knows beauty parlour work and earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. The applicant further pleaded that he is a poor person and is running only a small village Kirana shop with the assistance of his brother, from which he earns approximately Rs.5,000/- per month. It was further stated that the applicant does not have the income as falsely alleged by the respondent. 5. The order sheets show that after institution of the case, the applicant was directed to 5le his reply and a<davit, and the matter thereafter proceeded on di?erent dates, including 07.01.2026, 19.03.2026 and 13.04.2026, before being 5xed for arguments on the application for interim maintenance. The applicant also 5led his a<davit/disclosure and relevant documents before the learned Family Court, demonstrating his limited 3 5nancial means and personal circumstances. 6. Despite the speci5c defence raised by the applicant and in the absence of reliable documentary evidence establishing the inAated income alleged by the respondent, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 05.06.2026, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in favour of the respondent from the date of 5ling of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the facts on record and has been passed without proper appreciation of the reply 5led by the applicant. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the allegations regarding the applicant’s alleged substantial income from the Kirana business, agricultural lands, tractor and other sources were speci5cally denied and disputed by the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had speci5cally pleaded that he is a poor person, running only a small Kirana shop in the village with the assistance of his brother, from which he earns only approximately Rs.5,000/- per month. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant’s speci5c plea that the respondent is an educated person, knows beauty parlour work and earns approximately Rs.15,000/- per month. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider the defence of the applicant that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that several allegations made by her were speci5cally denied in the reply 5led by the applicant. The learned Family Court proceeded merely on a broad prima facie assumption that, since the respondent is the wife of the applicant and is residing separately, interim maintenance must necessarily be granted, without properly appreciating the applicant’s defence, 5nancial 4 liabilities and the disputed assertions regarding his income. He submits that the impugned order does not reAect proper judicial assessment of the rival claims regarding the respective incomes of the parties and is, therefore, unsustainable in its present form. He submits that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and on the higher side, and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application 5led by the respondent seeking interim maintenance. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certi5ed copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek