[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Akanksha Singh vs Mukund Singh on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15549
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 432 of 2026
Smt. Akanksha Singh W/o Mukund Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o 654,
Dahlia-B-Block Talpuri Bhilai, Tah. and Distt. Durg (C.G.) Aadhar No.
557794639850
... Applicant
versus
Mukund Singh S/o Shri Manoranjan Singh Aged About 40 Years Flat No. 1403,
Tower No. 1 Satya Anugrah Society, Kurvey Nagar (Kaveri Nagar) Govinda
Raja Nagar Vijayanagar Ward Bangaluru 560079, Office Address Mukund
Singh Employee I.D. No. 664969, Senior Manager Credit Policy Section R. M.
Digitally
signed by
Wing Canara Bank Head Office Building No. 112, J.C. Road Bangaluru 560002
PREETI
PREETI
KUMARI
KUMARI
Date:
Adhar No. 249971587076
2026.04.07
11:16:17
+0530 ... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
06.04.2026
1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order
dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1655/2024, whereby the interim
maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
applicant/wife has been partly allowed and directed the
respondent/husband to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance
to his wife/applicant.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant is limiting the
facts herein to the extent they relate to the order dated 19.02.2026,
whereby the application for grant of interim maintenance has been
allowed at only Rs. 3,000/- per month, whereas the respondent/husband
is a Senior Manager in Canara Bank, Bengaluru, and is drawing a salary
in lakhs. The applicant and the respondent were married on 12.12.2016
in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
The applicant's parents gave a substantial amount in cash and kind,
including gold ornaments and household articles, at the time of marriage
and thereafter, in order to ensure a comfortable life for the applicant.
After the marriage, the respondent began subjecting the applicant to
physical and mental cruelty and demanded additional dowry. Disputes
arose between them, and on 15.11.2024, the respondent abandoned the
applicant at Raipur Airport and has since shown no intention of resuming
cohabitation, thereby deserting her willfully. Thereafter, on 30.12.2024,
the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an
application for grant of interim maintenance, inter alia, on the following
grounds: the respondent subjected the Applicant to physical and mental
harassment and demanded additional dowry. He used to assault her over
trivial matters and frequently quarreled with her at the instigation of his
parents, sister, and relatives. Being aggrieved by such acts, the applicant
lodged a complaint on 12.09.2024 at Bengaluru for offences under
Section 498A IPC, which is currently under investigation. The respondent
has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Bengaluru, which
has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is likely to be
transferred to Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. The respondent is employed as a Senior Manager in Canara Bank,
Bengaluru, and is earning a salary in lakhs per month, with no substantial
liabilities. His father is a retired officer from Bhilai Steel Plant and is
financially well-settled, leading a comfortable life with his wife. On account
of the desertion and cruelty, the applicant also initiated divorce
proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- per month, along with
an application for interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The
respondent, in his reply to the application for interim maintenance,
contended that he is unable to pay maintenance. However, the applicant
is residing separately with her parents, is unemployed, and is living in a
state of destitution. It is an admitted position that the respondent is
employed as a Senior Manager in Canara Bank and is earning more than
Rs. 1 lakh per month. During the proceedings, both parties filed their
affidavits regarding income and assets in compliance with the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha. Without properly
considering the documents and material on record, the learned Family
Court, vide order dated 19.02.2026, granted interim maintenance of only
Rs. 3,000/- per month, which is arbitrary, perverse, and passed without
proper application of mind. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order,
the applicant prefers the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order passed by
the learned Family Court is perverse, illegal, and contrary to the law,
facts, and circumstances of the present case. The learned Family Court
has failed to consider the evidence regarding the salary of the respondent,
as disclosed in his affidavit. The interim maintenance of
Rs. 3,000/- per month has been fixed without any reasonable basis and is
wholly inadequate, considering the status and standard of living of both
the applicant and the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the learned Family Court has based its findings on unfounded
grounds, the veracity of which has not been corroborated by any evidence
on record. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the
income of the respondent, his liabilities, and the genuine needs of the
applicant, and has drawn erroneous inferences without due consideration
of the material on record. The learned Family Court has not assigned any
reasons for disregarding the documentary evidence pertaining to the
income of the respondent, as reflected in the salary slip, which is in
violation of the principles of natural justice. The facts stated by the
applicant on affidavit ought to have been duly considered. The gross
salary of the respondent was required to be taken into account in
accordance with law, and appropriate inferences should have been drawn
for determining interim maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed
to appreciate the settled legal position that admitted facts, particularly
regarding income, do not require strict proof, and facts not specifically
denied are deemed to be admitted. The learned Family Court has ignored
the evidence and documents placed on record in light of the judgment in
Rajnesh vs. Neha, and has failed to draw appropriate inferences in favour
of the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to observe that
sufficient material exists on record to establish the financial capacity of the
respondent to maintain the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed
to appreciate that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil
and quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is based on
preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
impugned order is improper, incorrect, and contrary to established judicial
precedents and settled legal principles. The findings recorded by the
learned Family Court are the result of improper appreciation of the
evidence, including documentary proof of income. The impugned order
suffers from material illegality and is liable to be set aside. It is therefore
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enhance the interim
maintenance to at least Rs. 50,000/- per month.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the judgment of
the trial Court and records of the trial Court.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the
learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of
the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and
considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned Family
Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and
infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court.
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 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of three months from
today, if there is no any legal impediment.
- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Preeti
