1 2025:CGHC:27129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 541 of 2025  Girdhar Das S/o Vishal Das Manikpuri Aged About 72 Years R/o Ward No.- 13, Matiya, Dongargaon, Teh. - Dongargaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.), (Non Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Smt. Inderbai W/o Girdhardas Manikpuri Aged About 56 Years R/o House No.-22, Titurdeeh, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.), (Applicant) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : None, even in two rounds. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ do issue calling all the relevant records of the case pertaining to the from the court below for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ do issue and set aside the order dated 23-04-2024 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Durg (C.G.). 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ do issue and direct the learned Trial Court to restore the case in it's original case number. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.06.25 10:17:01 +0530 2 10.4 Cost of proceedings. 10.5 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 2. The petitioner and respondent were married off on 07.09.2019 before the District Marriage Officer, Rajnandgaon and they were staying at village Matiya, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon. The dispute arose between them, and thereafter, an application under Section 125 of CrPC was moved by the respondent for the grant of maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg and an order was passed on the basis of settlement on 23.04.2024, wherein, the petitioner had agreed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent by 10th day of every month. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order which was passed on 23.04.2024 inter alia on the ground that the consent of the petitioner was obtained using undue pressure and force. It is also stated that the behavior of the respondent/wife was rude towards the petitioner. It is also pleaded that in the affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, the respondent had admitted that the property was not transferred by her husband, therefore, she left the house. Thus, a prayer has been made to set-aside the order. 4. Perusal of the documents would show that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was moved by the respondent for the grant of maintenance and a compromise order was passed by the learned Family Court on 23.04.2024, wherein, the petitioner/husband had agreed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent/wife by 10th day of every month. 5. The order was passed on 23.04.2024, but for more than one year, the petitioner did not make any complaint before any of the authorities against the respondent. The petitioner has not placed on record a copy of the 3 compromise application moved by the parties and there is no material to infer that the compromise order was recorded by applying undue pressure. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 23.04.2024. 7. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant