1 2025:CGHC:26857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 761 of 2022 Govind Pradhan S/o Ganeshram Pardhan Aged About 43 Years Occupation Govt. Employee, Resident Of House No. 719 Chandmari, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appilcant versus 1 - Seema Pradhan W/o Govind Pardhan Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Housewife R/o House No. 719, Near Chandmari School , Ward No. 9, Chandmari, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh 2 - Suman Pardhan D/o Govind Pardhan Aged About 18 Years R/o House No. 719, Near Chandmari School , Ward No. 9, Chandmari, Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Non-appalicant For Applicant : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Cr. M.J.C. No. F-100/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2, as interim maintenance. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the facts of the case in brief is that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance in which also seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 25-25,000/- per month in application for grant of ad-interim maintenance amount against the applicant. The applicant had solemnized marriage along with non-applicant No.1 according to Hindu Custom since then the non-applicant No. 1 was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on their wedlock, the non-applicant No.2 born. As per allegation made by the non- applicant No.1 is that the applicant and his family members were harassing and torturing in the name of dowry and he did not take care to the non-applicants and not proper treatment of the non- applicant No.1 and the applicant had also demanded dowry with cruel from the non-applicant No.1, and hence the non-applicant No. 1 left at her matrimonial house and residing with her daughter non- applicant No.2 at her parental house. The non-applicant No.1 has no any source of income to survival and applicant is government servant and working in collector office from which he ears Rs. 30,000/- per month and hence the non-applicants had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance 3 with application for granting interim maintenance amount of Rs. 25- 25,000/-per month against the applicant. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and it is stated that the non- applicant No. 1 has quarreled with the applicant without any reasons and she has left at her matrimonial house, she can be managed to maintain herself to livelihood herself. After application for granting interim maintenance of Rs. 25-25,000/-, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 27.06.2022, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- for non-applicant No. 1 and amount of Rs. 2500/- for non-applicant No. 2 total amount Rs. 5000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is the husband of the non-applicant No.1 and father of the non-applicant No.2, and an application under Section 125 of the CrPC was filed by the non-applicant No.1 along with the application for interim maintenance, and the interim maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded by learned Family Court to be granted by the applicant to the non-applicants. It is further submitted that the next date fixed by the learned Family Court for deciding the matter is 25.06.2025. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes 4 the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Cr. M.J.C. No. F-100/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 as interim maintenance, and he further submits that 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, and the next date fixed by the learned Family Court for deciding the matter is 25.06.2025, thus, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) has passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 in Cr. M.J.C. No. F- 100/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 5 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, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 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