1 2026:CGHC:20179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 597 of 2026 Bhupendra Sahu S/o Chhaganlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Medsara (Ahiwara), Tahsil- Ahiwara, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Anjali Sahu W/o Bhupendra Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar, Ward No. 16, Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) … Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that, the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned interim order dated 11.03.2026 passed in M. Cr. Case No. 843/2025 (Annexuré P-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) may kindly be set aside and the interim application filed by the non applicant under section 125 of Cr.P.C. may Kindly be RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from the applicant/husband, inter alia, pleading that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 04.02.2024 as per customary rites, and after the marriage, the applicant allegedly started consuming liquor, subjected her to physical assault, and ultimately deserted her, leaving her without any source of income to maintain herself. It was further averred that the applicant is employed as a truck driver earning approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month, and on such basis, she claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed his written statement, denying all the allegations made by the non-applicant and contending that she is not entitled to any maintenance, thereby praying for dismissal of the application. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Family Court recorded their statements and, primarily relying upon the version of the non-applicant, held the applicant liable to maintain her and passed the impugned order, whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the non-applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has gravely erred in passing the impugned order awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the non- 3 applicant, despite the fact that she failed to establish any justifiable or sufficient reason for residing separately from the applicant, and thus is not entitled to any maintenance. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record, inasmuch as the non-applicant has allegedly instituted false and frivolous cases against the family members of the applicant, which aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned court below. It is also contended that the learned trial court failed to duly consider the financial condition of the applicant, who is merely a driver earning approximately Rs. 6,000/- per month, and as such, the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the impugned order is against the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the material available before it and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law, as the non-applicant/wife had specifically pleaded and prima facie established that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant, that she was subjected to ill-treatment and was deserted without any sufficient means for her sustenance, and that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. The learned Family Court, after recording the statements of the parties and duly 4 evaluating the circumstances of the case, has justifiably held that the applicant/husband, being legally bound, is liable to maintain the non-applicant, and accordingly awarded a reasonable and moderate amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary in any manner. Thus, the impugned order is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of facts and settled principles of law. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 8. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 144 of BNSS, preferably within a period of three months, if there is no any legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan