1 2025:CGHC:10244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 278 of 2025 1 - Ashish Malviya S/o Lt. Kamalkant Aged About 43 Years At - Ashish Sadi, Bakshi Marg Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vinita Malviya W/o Ashish Malviya Aged About 39 Years H.No. 788, Street No. 11, Shantinagar, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Manu Malviya D/o Ashish Malviya Aged About 2 Years Through Next Of Kin Mother Vinita Malviya, H.No. 788, Street No. 11, Shantinagar, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being 2 aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Court of Principle Judge Family Court Durg, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.C.C. No. 471 of 2024. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent wife) filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC more than six years after the solemnization of her marriage. In her application, she stated that her marriage was solemnized on March 8, 2018, and she subsequently gave birth to respondent No. 2, her daughter, who lives with her. The respondent wife alleged that since the inception of her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands. She further alleged that due to the petitioner's and his family's torture, she moved to her paternal home on March 15, 2019, where she discovered she was pregnant. Additionally, she claimed that during her pregnancy and after giving birth to their daughter, the petitioner neither visited her nor provided necessary medical treatment. The trial Court allowed the application of respondent and granted interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- for respondent-wife and Rs.1500/- to respondent No.2. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. He stated that the application for maintenance was filed by the respondent-wife after a lapse of 5 years of desertion which clearly shows that in those five years she was able to maintain herself. He would further submit that the trial Court has also failed to appreciate after 06 years of marriage respondent-wife alleged that the present petitioner harassed her. Hence he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order of maintenance passed by the concerned Family Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused impugned order passed by the concerned Family court with utmost circumspection. 5. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that present applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1 and they both have a child. It is also clear that the respondents no.1 is living separately. 6. All the defences raised by the husband/applicant in this instant revision are the matter of merits of the case and it will be decided by the trial Court on merits. The trial Court has granted 2500/- for wife and 1500 for child 4 which is a meagre amount of maintenance, therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere in this case. Consequently, the petitioner is further directed to file appropriate application for counseling before the appropriate family Court for trying to counsel by and between the parties. 7. Accordingly, with these observations and directions this petition is dismissed. 8. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA