Chattisgarh High Court
Nibin E. K vs Vidya Nair on 9 March, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2026.03.10
10:19:12 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 308 of 2026
1 - Nibin E. K. S/o Krishnankutty Aged About 37 Years R/o
Pudunagaram, Post- Paridhi, Police Station - Paridhi, District- Palakkad
(Kerala), Elaimkad, Peruvamla, Post Palakkad, Kerala.
... applicant(s)
versus
1 - Vidya Nair D/o Vijay Nair Aged About 28 Years W/o Nibin E.K., R/o
New Adarsh Colony, Ward No. 48, Nandai Chowk, Rajnandgaon,
District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For applicant (s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09.03.2026
1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Misc. Criminal Case No. 199 of 2024, whereby the learned Family court has 2 granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.
2. The present case arises from an application filed by the non- applicant under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 22.05.2022 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, she lived at the applicant's house for about one month and alleged that the applicant and his family members prevented her from continuing her studies and subjected her to mental and physical harassment. Due to the alleged ill-treatment, she started residing at her parental home in Rajnandgaon and resumed her incomplete education. The non-applicant claimed that the applicant is working as a Manager earning about Rs. 80,000 per month and sought maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month. The applicant denied all allegations and contended that the non-applicant herself is working as a Dance Teacher at Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh earning Rs. 30,000-40,000 per month and that her parents are also earning, therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month to the non-applicant, which the applicant has challenged in the present revision as being on the higher side.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause and started residing at her parental house, thereby disentitling herself from claiming maintenance. It 3 is further submitted that the non-applicant is gainfully employed as a Dance Teacher at Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya, Khairagarh and earns approximately Rs. 30,000-40,000 per month, which is sufficient for her self-maintenance, yet this material fact was not properly considered by the learned Court below. The Court also overlooked the short duration of matrimonial cohabitation and the absence of any prima facie evidence supporting the allegations of cruelty made by the non-applicant. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court did not adequately consider the financial liabilities and responsibilities of the applicant nor scrutinize the income of the non-applicant in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021 (2) SCC 324 resulting in a mechanical and unjust order that calls for interference by this Hon'ble Court in revision.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material annexed with the revision.
5. Present revision is filed against the order of grant of interim maintenance amount and final adjudication of the case is still pending before the learned Family court. After considering the status of the parties, liability on the applicant, requirement of day-to-day expenses, as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned family Court awarded Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent. The quantum of maintenance always lies with the discretion of the learned Family Court, and the said discretion cannot be interfered with, unless and until it is shown as arbitrary or capricious. 4
6. A three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vimala(K) Vs Veeraswami, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375, in para-3 of its judgment held that;
"Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. xxxxxxx"
7. In case of Kirtikant D Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 479, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 15 of its judgment as under:
15) The pint in controversy before us however is whether a 'stepmother' can claim maintenance from the step-son or not, having regard to the aims and objects of Section 125 of the Code. While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women. children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation, Having regard to this social object the provisions of Section 125 of the Code have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the Legislature. consequently, to achieve this objective, in out opinion, a childless step- mother may claim maintenance from her step-son provided she is widow or her husband, if living, is also incapable of supporting and maintaining her. The obligation of the son to maintain his father, who is unable to maintain himself, is unquestionable, When she claims maintenance from her natural born children, she does so in her status as their 'mother'. such an interpretation would be in accord with the explanation attached to Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance 5 Act.1956 because to exclude altogether the personal Law applicable to the parties from consideration in matters of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may not be wholly justified. However, no intention of Legislature can be read in Section 125 of the Code that even though a mother has her real and natural born son or sons and a husband capable of maintaining her, she could still proceed against her step-son to claim maintenance.
Since, in this case we are not concerned with, we express no opining, on the question of liability, if any, of the step-son to maintain the step-mother, out of the inherited family estate by the step-son and leave that question to be decided in an appropriate case. Our discussion is confined to the obligations under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only.
8. In case of Chaturbhuj Vs Sitabai, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 316, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-6 of its judgment, has held that:
"6. The object xxxxxxxxxx Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. (AIR 1978 SC 1807) falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 503)."
9. At this stage, any observation made by this Court in the entitlement or quantum of interim maintenance granted by the learned Family Court may project the ultimate outcome of the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent/wife.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents available in the present revision petition, and also the above mentioned 6 proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no infirmity is found in the impugned order, and therefore, present Criminal Revision stands dismissed. However, learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon is directed to make its earnest endeavour to conclude the trial of the case as early as possible.
11. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family court for necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika