1 2025:CGHC:45875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 16 of 2020 Kartikeshwar Vaishnav S/o Shri Minketan Vaishnav Aged About 30 Years R/o Beladulla, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kavita Vaishnav W/o Kartikeshwar Vaishnav Aged About 28 Years R/o Through Shri Tulsidas Vaishnav, Akriti Residency, Rajim Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2020, which is an application for condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2020 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.682/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, while entertaining an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent entered into matrimony on 09.05.2016 at Abhanpur, District Raipur, after initially coming into contact through Facebook. Subsequently, both families interacted and consented to the marriage. After the marriage, the couple started residing at the house of the applicant (revisioner). On the very next day, i.e., 10.05.2016, at around 10:00 PM, the father of the respondent, Shri Tulsidas Vaishnav, mother Smt. Ramkali Vaishnav, sister Karuna Vaishnav, brother Harish Vaishnav, and uncle Bhagwan Das Vaishnav visited the applicant’s house and attempted to forcibly deliver certain household articles, which the applicant declined to accept. The applicant is the only son of his parents and has no siblings. Naturally, his parents are deeply attached to him. However, it is the intention of the respondent’s parents to take the applicant to reside at their residence as a ghar-jamai (resident son-in-law), a proposal to which the applicant is not agreeable. Upon the applicant’s refusal to reside at the 3 respondent’s parental home at Abhanpur, the respondent lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant also filed a complaint case under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the respondent and her family members. The Magistrate proceeded with the complaint and passed an order for registration of the case. However, the said order was challenged by the respondent and her family before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court, upon consideration, found that the alleged offence did not occur within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and, therefore, set- aside the order of registration of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned compromise order dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure R-1) is void, bad in law, and perverse, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The interim maintenance has been granted without examining the merits of the case and is based merely on presumptions. The revisionist is currently unemployed and financially dependent on his parents. On the other hand, the respondent/wife is well- qualified (M.Ed.) and is gainfully employed as a school teacher, earning sufficient income to support herself. She has also made false allegations under Section 498-A IPC, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance. Furthermore, the respondent and her parents are themselves accused under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 4 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife, Smt. Kavita Vaishnav, to ensure her sustenance during the pendency of the proceedings. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court while granting interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/-, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 11. 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 5 months, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. It is submitted that the records of the Family Court in the present matter were called for by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2023, on account of which the final order regarding maintenance could not be passed. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within 48 hours from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil