1 2025:CGHC:45872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 818 of 2019 Aswant Kumar Patel S/o Har Prasad Patel Aged About 29 Years Caste Patel, R/o Village Pakariya (Jhulan), P.S. Mulmula, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Anusuiya Patel W/o Aswant Patel Aged About 25 Years D/o Mahadeva Prasad Patel, Caste Patel, R/o Village Charpara, P.S. Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by learned Link Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Case No.17/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, while entertaining an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an undisputed fact that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and that their marriage took place on 18.02.2018 in accordance with Hindu customs at Village Charpara, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa. It is also undisputed that, soon after the marriage, the applicant allegedly began demanding dowry and subjected the respondent to mental and physical cruelty, due to which she has been residing at her parental home. The applicant claims that he is currently unemployed and has no source of income. He further contends that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own will and has been voluntarily residing with her parents. As a result, he has been deprived of marital companionship since shortly after the marriage. The interim maintenance application filed by the respondent was erroneously allowed by the Family Court, directing the applicant to pay Rs.3,000 per month. The impugned order dated 12.04.2019 is therefore bad in law and on facts, and hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that The respondent/wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home after marriage and has been residing at her parental home. She was employed at a private institution even prior to marriage and has sufficient means to maintain herself, making the maintenance application before the Family Court unjustified. The applicant was 3 previously employed as a computer operator at Shivshakti Shikshan College, Khorsi, earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but has since left the job and is currently unemployed. The respondent failed to provide any documentary evidence before the Family Court to prove that the applicant owns 6 acres of agricultural land or earns Rs.2 lakhs annually. Given the absence of such evidence and considering the affidavit and oral submissions made by the applicant, the impugned order dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure A-1) granting interim maintenance is erroneous and liable to be set- aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the 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. 3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the absence of conclusive documentary evidence regarding the income of both parties, it is found that the applicant (wife) does not have any independent source of income. Although the respondent (husband) claims to be unemployed, no supporting documents have been submitted. Therefore, in view of the likelihood of delay in final disposal of the case and to ensure 4 the applicant is not left destitute, the Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the respondent/wife as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court while granting interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/-, 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. 7. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 8. 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, in accordance with law, if already not decided. 9. 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