1 2025:CGHC:26859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 441 of 2022 Smt. Mukta Agrawal W/o Kamlesh Agrawal, Aged About 30 Years R/o (Presently) Ganja Chowk, Baniya Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Kamlesh Agrawal S/o Dinayal Agrawal R/o Village Banki Mongra, Beside Durga Mandir, Post Office And Police Station Banki Mongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dharam Lal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Dharam Lal, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in MJC No. F75/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, has allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance, and directed the non- applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant as the interim maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of non-applicant, the marriage was performed on 28.04.2014 following the Hindu rituals at Agrasen Bhawan Banki Mongra Katghora District Korba and after marriage, she went to the house of non-applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but after six months of marriage, the non-applicant and his mother and father subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and for having childless. After marriage the brother of the applicant has paid Rupees 7 Lacs for the treatment of Cancer. It was further contended by the applicant that her parents had given some ornaments and gifts as per their standard and had also given a golden chain and rupees 3 lacs in cash to the non-applicant. Even after the marriage they had given about rupees 1 lacs for the purchase of goods for his Shop for about one year. After one and half years of marriage her husband and in-laws pressurized her for signing in a "Talaknama", and she had denied the same. She suggested her in-laws for adaptation of a child on account of which her in-laws said that they will remarry their son to someone else. On 04.03.2020 her husband and in-laws beaten her and let her out of the house, and she is residing in a rental house with the help of her brother. The rent of the house is about Rs. 10,000, she has expenditures of about Rs. 15,000 towards her medical facilities, and also of 25 to 30 thousand for routine medical visit to Medanta Hospital Mumbai in every three months. She is infected of cancer, so she is unable to earn money. She is totally dependent on her parents, the non-applicant is having sufficient income, in spite of that he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the non-applicant, therefore, the non-applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with an application for 3 grant of interim maintenance. After serving of notice, the non-applicant filed reply, thereby denied the allegations and submitted that neither the non-applicant nor any of his family members have ever demanded any money from the applicant or her parents. The applicant herself went to the house of her parents for treatment of cancer and due to the illness, she became frustrated and irritate, and without informing her husband and in-laws she has gone to her parental home and still residing there. She is making such allegation only for taking the undue advantage. In these three months of her stay at matrimonial home she used to go to her parental home for taking the medicines and also brought the same to her matrimonial home. After some days her health became serious and she pressurized her husband for taking her to parental home and ultimately she gone there stating that her brother used to take her at a place named "Bargadh" for treatment and she used to get well. On 03.12.2015 her parents taken her to the Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai and called the non-applicant saying that they need him for her treatment, and upon the arrival of the non-applicant they informed him that the applicant is infected of cancer of Uterus and to save her life the same has to be removed and she will not be able to ever produce a child. The non- applicant has paid certain amount there for her treatment. It was also specifically submitted by the non-applicant that the applicant herself left her matrimonial house and living in her parental house without any reasonable cause, though the non-applicant is ready and willing to keep the applicant and to maintain her, but she is not willing to live with the applicant. It was also submitted by the non-applicant that she is a B.Com. graduate, well trained in sewing and related arts by which she can easily earn a monthly income of about 25 to 30 thousand rupees. The non- applicant is liable to maintain his parents. The applicant concealed the 4 fact of her illness at the time of marriage and due to the same the marriage itself is liable to be declared as null and void under section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance or interim maintenance. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 28.03.2022, the learned Family Court has allowed the interim application and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant towards interim maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant who is the wife of the non-applicant has been ordered to be paid the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month by the non- applicant/husband and it is stated that the same has also not been paid to her till date, and she has come up before this Court for enhancement of the amount for interim maintenance, therefore, the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, and the same is liable to be modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in MJC No. F75/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, has allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance, and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant as interim maintenance, and he further submits that the interim maintenance which has been ordered to be paid to the applicant cannot be said to be meager amount, and 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. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the trial Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, the interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- which has been ordered to be paid to the applicant by non-applicant cannot be said to be meager amount and it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 in MJC No. F75/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, has allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance, and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant as interim maintenance, 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 three months from today, 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