1 2026:CGHC:6302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 162 of 2026 Deepak Mishra S/o Santosh Mishra Aged About 28 Years Permanent Address- Village- Barbaspur, District- Baloda Bazar, C.G. , Presently Address- Patidar Bhawan, Near R. S. Shop Bhanpuri, Ganga Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vandana Mishra W/o Deepak Mishra Aged About 27 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Changorabhata, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Mayank Mishra Through Legal Guardian Smt. Vandana Mishra Aged About 11 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Changorabhata, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kishan Kumar Sonkar, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04 /02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Kishan Kumar Sonkar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has 9led this criminal revision against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No.661/2025, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (minor) as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the non-applicants 9led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 23.06.2023 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and social customs at Cultural Hall, Ayodhya Sagar, Changorabhatha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. From their wedlock, a son, namely non-applicant No. 2, Mayank Mishra, was born, who is presently residing with non-applicant No. 1. It is alleged by non- applicant No. 1 that after the marriage, the applicant used to consume alcohol, verbally abuse her in obscene language and physically assault her, while also forbidding her from informing anyone. Due to the continuous cruelty and abuse, non-applicant No. 1 was compelled to inform her family members and elders, who intervened and counseled the applicant. The applicant assured that he would stop drinking and would not assault her in future and a compromise agreement was also executed in this regard. However, on 09.05.2025, the applicant, after consuming excessive alcohol, assaulted non-applicant No. 1 and caused injury to her head. Consequently, non-applicant No. 1 lodged a written complaint at the Women’s Police Station, Raipur. Since that date, non-applicant No. 3 1 has been residing at her parental home and due to lack of 9nancial hardship, the present application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been 9led seeking maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and 9led his reply, denying the allegations made by the non-applicants. The applicant submitted that after marriage, he and non-applicant No. 1 resided in a rented house in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, after spending only a few days at his ancestral home. He further stated that he never consumed alcohol nor physically abused her. According to him, the non-applicant No.1 did not want to reside with her father-in-law in the village and repeatedly insisted on living in Raipur, from where she frequently visited her parental home. He alleged that she used to 9le false complaints against him, due to which he was beaten by her family members. The applicant further submitted that he is presently unemployed and residing with his parents in the village. His parents are old and suCering from illness and he is responsible for their care. He also contended that non-applicant No. 1 runs a tea and snack stall in a rented shop at Changorabhatha and earns approximately ₹30,000–40,000/- per month. Her father earns ₹15,000–20,000/- per month by driving a private vehicle. Thus, according to the applicant, she is 9nancially independent. It is further submitted that non-applicant No. 1 wants the applicant to live with her at her parental house, whereas the applicant, being the only son, does not wish to leave his aged parents. Several attempts were made for reconciliation, but she allegedly insisted on living separately in Raipur or at her parents’ 4 house and demanded that the applicant leave his parents. The applicant has also 9led an application for restitution of conjugal rights and according to him, she is deliberately residing separately without suFcient cause. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, vide order dated 09.12.2025, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance in favour of non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹5,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 and ₹2,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2, totaling ₹7,000/- per month as interim maintenance till 9nal disposal of the case. Hence, the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is bad in law as well as on facts and is not sustainable. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is ready and willing to keep non- applicant No. 1 with him, but she, without any reasonable cause, left the matrimonial home and is residing at her parental house; therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that the non-applicant No. 1 is 9nancially independent, as she runs a tea and snack stall in a rented shop at Changorabhatha and earns approximately ₹30,000–40,000/- per month and her father also earns ₹15,000–20,000/- per month by driving a private vehicle. It is also argued that due to the absence of the applicant, ex-parte proceedings were undertaken against him and the learned Family Court passed the impugned order without properly considering his side. Hence, the non-applicant No.1, having 5 voluntarily chosen to live separately without any reasonable cause, is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. 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 No.1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2, totaling Rs. 7000/- per month, 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-applicants are entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until 9nal 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 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 11. 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 three 6 months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certi9ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal