1 / 4 2025:CGHC:7780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 455 of 2024 1 - Falguni Deb S/o Dipak Deb, Aged About 42 Years R/o 2 B, Sudha Apartment 197 J.N. Bos Road, Subhasgram Near The Rail Gate, Kolkata 24 Pargana South Senarpur (W.B.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Sushmita Deb W/o Falguni Deb Aged About 42 Years D/o Kalipad Boss, R/o 1689/8, Sector-2, Jhanda Chowk, Shivanand Nagar, Police Station- Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) Mob. No. 9766932026 2 - Smt. Sandhyha Deb W/o Dipak Deb, Aged About 65 Years 3 - Dipak Deb S/o Kamal Krishna Deb Aged About 70 Years Respondents No.2 & 3 R/o Flat No. 2B, Sudha Apartment 197, JN Boss Road, Near Subhash Gram Railway Gate, Post-Kodaliya, Kolkatta (West Bangal)- 700146. 4 - Smt. Manu @ Basona Matabbar Rai W/o Romen Matabbar Rai, Aged About 42 Years R/o C/o Vijendranath Matabbar, Salua, 3-Garment Colony Sangati, North 24-Pergana (West Bangal) 5 - Smt. Madhumita Dey W/o Sanjay Dey Aged About 40 Years R/o Club Town, Rathtala, Dunlop, Kolkatta, (West Bengal) – 700056 (Respondent No.2 To 5 Are Party Before The Trial Court, However Impugned Order Wrongly Not Made A Party) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate along with Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 5 Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.05 15:08:00 +0530 2 / 4 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. The instant revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 20/03/2024 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.279/2023 whereby by the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 09/11/2023 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of this case are that initially Respondent No.1/wife filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005) against the petitioner and Respondents No.2 to 5 inter alia alleging cruelty meted out to her for demand of dowry by the petitioner herein, who is the husband of Respondent No.1 & other family members. The JMFC, Raipur allowed the application 23 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by order dated 22/10/2021 and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- for accommodation per month to the wife. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 25 (2) of the Act, 2005 before the JMFC, Raipur and the JMFC by order dated 09/11/2023 allowed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner and recalled the order dated 22/10/2021 and made effective the order dated 09/11/2023 from the date of order itself only. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3 / 4 09/11/2023 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge also affirmed the order dated 09/11/2023 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the trial Court allowed the application under Section 25 (2) of the Act, 2005 filed by the petitioner but it has been mentioned in the order that this order is effective from 09/11/2023 and observed that the order of maintenance was confirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, the modification is effective from the date of order i.e. 09/11/2023, which is arbitrary & illegal and the same deserves to be set aside. He would next contend that both the Courts below should have allowed the application from the date of filing of the application. Therefore, prayer is made to make the order effective from the date of filing of the application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the order of both the Courts below are well merited which do not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of the documents would show that Respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact about her income obtained the order of interim maintenance. The learned trial Court has recalled the order dated 22/10/2021 by holding that on the basis of the above grounds the application filed by the respondent under Section 25 (2 ) of the Act, 2005 4 / 4 is accepted and order dated 22/10/2021 is recalled from today i.e. 09/11/2023. Whereas the order would be effective from the date of application i.e. from 12/12/2022. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In view of the considered opinion of this Court the order dated 20/03/2024 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. is set aside and the instant revision is allowed to the extent that the order dated 09/11/2023 shall be applicable from the date of filing of the application under Section 25(2) of the Act, 2005. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu