1 2025:CGHC:29576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 782 of 2025 Pradeep Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Dharamlal Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Saragaon, Chowki Saragaon, Tahsil and District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Amita Dewangan W/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Dewangan Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Budhwari Bazar, Korba, Police Chowki- C.S.E.B. Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal Family Judge, Korba (C.G.) in Case No.01/2024, whereby the interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.9,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife from the date of application. Hence, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:52 +0530 2 this revision. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife whose marriage has been solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 10.02.2019 at Korba. After the marriage the applicant and respondent started residing at Sargaon which is native place of the applicant. Unfortunately, the respondent turned out to be high temper, stubborn, free wiling, skeptical woman who was not inclined to perform her marital duties. Due to the conduct of respondent the applicant left his native home and started to reside separately with the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant took the respondent at his present place of posting there also behavior of the respondent was of cruelty and harassment towards the applicant. On 14.11.2019 the respondent left the applicant on her own and went to her father's place. The respondent filed an application under Section125 claiming that she was used to be harassed in the name of dowry and has also been assaulted. The respondent prayed for Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent further prayed for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. The applicant filed his reply and denied all the allegations leveled against him he further submitted that on 14.11.2019 he received a call from police station Tumla Distt. Jaspur so he went there along with the respondent where he got to know that the parents of the respondent were lodging a false report against the family of the applicant. However, the Learned Family Court has overlooked the reply and relevant documents submitted by the applicant and passed the interim order dated 12.12.2024 directing Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The Learned Family Court 3 failed to consider that applicant has taken personal loan and every month he has to pay premium amount and all the relevant documents has been filed before the Court however the Learned Court has refused to consider by stating a very poor ground that when respondent is leaving separately so for what reason the applicant has taken personal loan. The applicant is also having responsibility of his poor old aged parents who are unable to maintain themselves and they are dependent on their son for every need and wants. The learned Family Court failed to consider the conduct of respondent, who not only left the matrimonial home on her own will without any just and reasonable cause but also failed to perform her marital obligations. The quantum of amount of interim maintenance awarded is excessive, disproportionate, and based on mes-appreciation of facts. Hence, the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the trial Court and records of the trial Court. 5. From perusal of the evidence available on record and the impugned order, it transpires that prima-facie there is no evidence of the respondent/wife earning any income whereas the applicant/husband is a teacher in the Education Department, whose gross salary for August 2024 is Rs. 64,032/-, total deductions Rs 5,352/-, net salary Rs 58,680/-. The applicant has submitted documents of depositing the installment of personal loan, paying the insurance premium. At this stage, there is no evidence as to why the applicant took a personal loan after the respondent/wife separated from the applicant. Further, keeping in view the needs of the respondent etc., it is appropriate that at this stage, the respondent should be given interim maintenance amount of Rs. 9,000/- from the applicant from the date of application. 4 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family 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 from today, if there is no any legal impediment. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti