1 CGHC010351732026 2026:CGHC:39851 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1190 of 2026 Loknath Sahu S/o Tikaram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Aunrethi, Post P. S. And Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Neha Sahu @ Hulsi Sahu W/o Lokhnath Sahu Aged About 30 Years Both Are R/o Village Aunrethi, Post P.S. And Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Village Jevra, Post Office Tipni, P.S. Tehsil Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara, C. G. 2 - Ku. Dipali, Sahu D/o Loknath Sahu Aged About 7 Years Through Legal Natural Mother Neha, Sahu @ Hulsi Sahu. ----R/o Village Aunrethi, Post P.S. And Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. At Present Address Village Jevra, Post Office Tipni, P.S. Tehsil Thankhamhariya, District Bemetara, C. G. ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. Heard on the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 02/2026). 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated therein, the delay of 17 days in filing the revision is condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02/2026 is allowed. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 3. Heard on admission. 4. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant (husband) under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 122/2025 (Neha Sahu and another Vs. Loknath Sahu), whereby the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance of 1,200/- per month to Respondent No. 1 (wife) and 800/- ₹ ₹ per month to Respondent No. 2 (minor daughter), totaling 2,000/- per ₹ month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no independent source of income and merely owns agricultural land measuring about 5 to 7 acres. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 is employed as a teacher in a private school, earning approximately 7,000/- per month, ₹ and is therefore not entitled to any interim maintenance. He contends that despite these facts, the learned Family Court erroneously granted interim maintenance in favor of the respondents, rendering the impugned order perverse and liable to be set aside. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of 1,200/- to the wife ₹ and 800/- to the minor daughter, totaling 2,000/- per month. Learned ₹ ₹ counsel for the applicant has conceded that the applicant holds 5 to 7 acres of agricultural land. Furthermore, the record reflects the respondents' assertion that the applicant has additional sources of income, including employment at a petrol pump and earnings from a grocery store. 7. The object behind Section 125 of the Cr.P.C./144 of the BNSS is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing speedy, summary relief to a neglected 3 wife and child. At the stage of deciding an application for interim maintenance, the court is only required to make a prima facie assessment of the material on record, leaving detailed evidentiary considerations for final adjudication. Considering the applicant's admitted landholding, prevailing living expenses, inflation rise and the modest sum of 2,000/- awarded in ₹ total as an interim maintenance, the amount cannot be termed exorbitant, perverse, or unreasonable. 8. Consequently, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, illegality, or patent perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay