1 2025:CGHC:24963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 290 of 2017 Satyam Kashipuri W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Kashipuri Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Village Panchayat Building Lingiadih, Rajkishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., --- Applicant versus Santosh Kumar Kashipuri S/o Mohan Kashipuri Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Darri, Post Office, Lalpur, Police Station Gaurela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Y.C.Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Chandrawanshi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant/wife with the following prayer:- “ In view of the facts mentioned above, the petitioner does hereby most respectfully prays with this Hon’ble Court to please quash and set-aside the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:12 +0530 2 Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 167/2016 and please allow the petitioner’s application for maintenance allowing her a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the respondent for her maintenance. Cost and any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please also be granted.” 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant/wife is the legally wedded wife of the respondent/husband who is a person of cruel and irresponsible behaviour and also because the respondent has earlier kept one women named Satyavati as his second wife who also left him with her child then again she started living in adultery with a women name Ansuiya keeping her as his third wife has been forced to leave the house of the respondent and is leaving separately at Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. The applicant is an illiterate woman who is unable to maintain herself properly therefore she moved an application before the Family Court, Bilaspur under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 seeking maintenance from the respondent. The Learned Family Court after hearing the parties has concluded the proceedings with totally perverse findings and has held that the applicant had no appropriate reason to live separately, that she is able in maintaining herself, that the respondent is able in maintaining the applicant and lastly by order dated 08.03.2017 has rejected the applicant's application holding that she is not entitled for getting any amount on account of maintenance from the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the in the present revision, the application for interim maintenance filed by the applicant and the same has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2017 and it is stated that while rejecting the aforesaid application, this Court has directed the respondent to pay grant of 3 maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant but it is stated that the same has not been received by her till date. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, 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. Also considering the fact that if the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has not been concluded, the same shall be concluded expeditiously. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original record, to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti