1 2025:CGHC:36875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 892 of 2023 Rajkumar Patel S/o Late Ramnarayan Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Raliya, Near Gewra, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil - Katghora, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Geeta Patel W/o Shri Rajkumar Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Akhrapali, P.S. Urga, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgar Mob. No. 8223881032. 2. Ku. Sonam Patel D/o Shri Rajkumar Patel Aged About 8 Years (For Non - Applicant Smt. Geeta Patel Non - Applicant Representing As A Guardian) ,R/o Village - Akhrapali, P.S. Urga, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgar Mob. No. 8223881032. 3. Suraj Patel S/o Shri Rajkumar Patel Aged About 8 Years (For Non - Applicant Smt. Geeta Patel Non - Applicant Representing As A Guardian) , R/o Village - Akhrapali, P.S. Urga, Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba, Chhattisgar Mob. No. 8223881032. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:00:58 +0530 2 Korba (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 173/2021, whereby the ad-interim maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to his wife/respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000-2,000/- each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month as maintenance. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized in the year 2013 according to Hindu rites and customs at Community Korba (C.G.). On 08.11.2021, the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was pending consideration on merits. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.02.2022, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 173/2021, decided the application and granted maintenance in favor of the respondents. The applicant was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent No.2 and 3 as monthly maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 01.02.2022, partly allowed the application for ad- interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay a total of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the impugned order dated 01.02.2022 is illegal and bad in law. The impugned order dated 01.02.2022, granting ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., has been passed without properly considering the material available on record. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is a labor-class person, currently unemployed, and has the additional responsibility of supporting his aged parents. The learned Family Court also failed to take into account that the property and shop 3 once owned by the applicant have already been sold, leaving him in a weak financial position. The Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the applicant still wishes to reside with the respondent No.1/wife whereas it was the respondent No.1 who voluntarily left the matrimonial home. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. The applicant is currently not in a financial position to pay the maintenance as awarded, and hence the order for ad-interim maintenance is unjust and excessive. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment of the Family Court and records of the Family Court. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 7. 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