1 2025:CGHC:40569 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 289 of 2024 Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra S/o Mahettar Lal Chandra Aged About 43 Years (At Present Aged About 46 Years), R/o Village Sarasdhol, Police Station Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Security Bairik Kulda Open Cast Project Basundhara Area, Balinga, Police Station Himgir, District - Sundergarh (Odisha) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ranu Chandra W/o Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra Aged About 38 Years (At Present Aged About 41 Years), R/o Village Sarasdhol, Police Station Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ramnagar, Mudapar, Korba, Tah And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gaurav Chandra S/o Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra Aged About 16 Years (At Present Aged About 19 Years), R/o Village Sarasdhol, Police Station Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ramnagar, Mudapar, Korba, Tah And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tarun Chandra S/o Tuleshwar Prasad Chandra Aged About 13 Years (At Present Aged About 16 Years), Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Ranu Chandra.) R/o Village Sarasdhol, Police Station Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ramnagar, Mudapar, Korba, Tah And District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 93/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, partly PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:22 +0530 2 allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.3. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized as per social rites and rituals on 21.05.2002 at village Kansa, Tahsil-Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) out of their wedlock two children namely Gaurav and Tarun Chandra were born. Due to cruel behavior of respondent No.1 many times social meeting were held and on 15.05.2014 in an agreement on submission of respondent No.1 that she will not misbehave with applicant and his family members the agreement between them has been executed but thereafter also the behavior of respondent No.1 has not been changed. Due to the said circumstances application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage has been filed by the applicant which was dismissed on 15.09.2023 against which First Appeal (Mat) No. 305/2023 has been filed by the applicant before this Court in which this Court on 07.02.2024 had passed order for payment of Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance pendent lite expenses to the respondent No. 1. Earlier an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act has also been filed by the respondent No.1 along with the respondent No. 2 and 3 before the learned trial Court bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 12/2019 and order has been passed by the learned trial Court on 08.02.2023 by allowing the case of respondent No.1 to 3 thereby directing applicant for paying maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 5000/- (each) to respondent No. 2 and 3. It has also been directed by order dated 08.02.2023 that the applicant will arrange proper accommodation for respondent No.1 to 3 3 and if proper arrangement has not been made by the applicant then applicant will have to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent No.1 for proper accommodation. Thereafter appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act has been filed by the appellant on 12.04.2023 before the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge Sakti (C.G.) on the ground that order of maintenance passed by the learned trial Court is on higher side and also on the ground that application under Section 12 of the domestic Violence Act, has to be filed only by respondent No.1. The learned Appellate Court after adducing the record of the trial Court had partly allowed the appeal of the applicant whereby the appellate Court by judgment dated 19.10.2023 had acquitted the other respondents and it has been directed by the appellate Court that the maintenance amount of respondent No. 2 Gaurav Chandra of Rs. 5000/- per month has to be paid by the applicant till attaining the age of majority. With the aforesaid observation the judgment dated 19.10.2023 has been passed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that at present situation applicant as per judgment dated 19.10.2023 paying amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondents and by order dated 07.02.2024 passed in F.A. (Mat) No. 305/2023 has to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No.1 and by present impugned order dated 09.01.2024 now the applicant has to pay total amount of Rs. 9000/- per month to the respondents which means the applicant including all the case has to be pay amount of Rs. 29,000/- per month which is extremely higher side therefore the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 is required to be 4 quashed. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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, 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 criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti