1 2025:CGHC:27080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 351 of 2024 R.K. Singh S/o Phool Singh, Aged About 61 Years R/o N.C. / 50, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Krishna Singh W/o Shri R.K. Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Quarter No. M.I.G. - 52, R.P. Nagar Phase - 2, Kosabadi, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- in six installment within six months to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent and applicant were married to each other on May, 1981 where all the rights and rituals RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 were performed under the Hindu tradition and customs. After the wedlock one daughter and two son born. The dispute arise between the applicant and respondent because the daughter of the parties married with Manoj Nag and the respondent supported them. Due to the husband of his daughter Rajana Nag being unemployed, the respondent/wife started keeping her son-in-law in the house and pressure was put on him to take responsibility of them, when applicant refused, they took all the household items in my absence and went to other private houses. MIG-52, R.B Nagar Korba, started living since 2006, daughter Ranjana, son-in-law Manish Nag. Son Mohnish Singh and younger son Vivek Singh started living together. In 2007 the learned Family Court, Korba allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC of the respondent and granted Rs. 3,500/- to the respondent as maintenance. In the year 2014 the respondent filed revision before this Court for enhancement of maintenance amount and vide order dated 16.07.2014 in CRR. No. 327/2007 enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 3,000/-, since July 2014, the applicant has been regularly paying the amount of Rs. 15,000/- into respondent's SBI account No. 63041766285. In addition to the monthly maintenance amount of Rs 15,000/-, due to various circumstances and due to health reasons, due to the wife's persuasion, a good amount of money was transferred to her account No. 6304176685 as advance maintenance between 2014- 2017, the entire amount was transferred to the respondent on the condition that the amount of advance maintenance will be adjusted 3 in future. On the strong insistence of the respondent and his two sons and other acquaintances, the applicant transferred his privately owned house MIG-52, Korba, the present value of which would be approximately Rs. 75,00,000/-, mutated in the name of the respondent in 2016, so that the respondent able to live freely without any pressure. An application under Section 125(3) of CrPC for recovery of maintenance was submitted by the wife on 01.06.2018, which is completely false and misleading to the learned Family Court. From July 2014 to May 2017, the applicant paid regular maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/-, apart from monthly, due to various circumstances and health reasons, due to strong persuasion of the respondent and his two sons, the applicant has on many occasions transferred a substantial amount of money to the respondent's bank account in lieu of advance maintenance. In reply to the application under Section 125(3) of CrPC the applicant submitted the documents of entire transaction for the period 27.10.2014 to 07.11.2017, by which the applicant had given total Rs. 18,46,000/- i.e. the applicant had paid excess amount of Rs. 11,26,000/-. On 11.11.2017 the respondent along with daughter Ranjana Nag, son-in-law Manish Nag, both the son Mohnish Singh and Vivek Singh with two friend Sonu Agrawal and Amit enter in the house of the applicant after breaking the lock of the main door with Iron Rod, Stick and hammer and threatened the applicant to give half of the salary. Therefore, the applicant reported to the concerned Police on various occasion but all are vein. After the above incident, the applicant stopped paying the amount of 4 maintenance from December 2017 and verbally said that he has deposited lakhs of rupees in your bank account in advance, which will be adjusted in maintenance. The respondent had accepted in her application dated 06.07.2021 before the learned Family Court that the applicant had transferred the amount of Rs. 18,46,000/- in her Bank Account, but denied that the above amount is for the purpose of maintenance. The learned Family Court on dated 02.09.2021 had given a finding that the amount was transferred by the applicant in the account of respondent, that it is a matter of evidence, it will be resolved only after taking evidence. The learned Family Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 without any evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitle of Rs. 11,85,000/- for total of 79 months from 01.06.2017 to 01.01.2024 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month on her oral statement and without evidence. On 03.02.2024 the applicant submitted an application for including the excess amount which he had paid during the period from 2014 to 2017 and also paid from the year 2021 to 2024 but the application was not taken on record by the learned Family Court and the same is illegal and arbitrary. The learned trial Court after appreciating the submissions on record reached to the conclusion that the respondent herein had proved their case initially that the applicant had not paid Rs. 6,25,000/- to the respondent and the applicant had only paid Rs. 5,70,000/-, and thus ordered to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- within a period of six months vide order dated 03.02.2024. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 5 applicant is the husband of the respondent, and though by the impugned order dated 03.02.2024, the applicant who has been directed to pay the outstanding amount of maintenance i.e. Rs. 6,25,000/- in six months’ installment, and he submits that he has already paid Rs. 18,46,000/- to the respondent, and the applicant has submitted an application for including the excess amount which he had paid during the period from 2014 to 2017 and also paid from the year 2021 to 2024 but the application was not taken on record by the learned Family Court, and a copy of the said application has been annexed as Annexure-A/9 along with the documentary evidence to show that he has paid the said amount, and the case is still pending before the learned Family Court concerned. Therefore 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- in six installment within six months to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, and the matter is still pending before the the learned Family Court concerned, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 03.02.2024 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6,25,000/- in six installment within six months to the respondent, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 9. 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 two months, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar