1 2025:CGHC:45984 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1933 of 2018 Pyare Lal S/o Late Domar Singh Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sankara (Ka), Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Dropati Sahu W/o Sukhdeo Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pauwara, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The Instant Petition filed by the petitioner is being aggrieved with the order dated 28.07.2018 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Cr.R. No. 11/2018, arising out of the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Balod, District – Balod (C.G.), in Misc. Cr. Case No. 14/2016, whereby the learned revisional Court, rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent stating her to be the wife of petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Violence Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D.V. Act. In the complaint, an application as discussed by the trial Court has been filed by the respondent seeking interim maintenance. It was pleaded in the complaint that the respondent is the wife of petitioner. The petitioner on the death of his wife, solemnized Chudi Marriage in the year 2009. After marriage, she was subjected to harassment. Thereafter, the respondent made complaint to the community/society and thereafter she left him in the year 2013 and resided with her father. Thereafter, on the death of her father, she had no source of income. It was pleaded that the husband has 15 acres of land and also has a house and he neglected her. Hence, prayed for interim maintenance of 15000/- per month. The petitioner filed the reply denying the contention stating that the respondent is not the wife of petitioner. The learned Trial Magistrate, vide its order dated 09-01-2018 allowed the application under Section 23 of D.V. Act and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge Balod (C.G.), wherein the petitioner raised the ground that no application under Section 23 of the Act was filed by the respondent seeking interim maintenance. Further it was stated that the Family Court has granted Rs.2000/- maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 19-10-2015, which is regularly paid by the petitioner, to which the criminal revision is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh. Further it was stated that no marriage was solemnized and even that the respondent has filed the complaint after period of three years, which is barred by limitation. The learned revisional Court without considering the legal ground and issue raised by the petitioner rejected the revision vide impugned order dated 28-07-2018 affirming the order of 3 the trial magistrate dated 09-01-2018. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that the trial Court as well as the revision Court before passing the order of interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/ under Section 23 of D.V. Act failed to appreciate that already maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month has been granted in the favour of the respondent, vide order dated 19-10-2015, which ought to have been considered and the interim maintenance application ought to have been rejected. It is also submitted that the petitioner though aged about 61 years is continuously paying maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent, which was awarded in the provision of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is evident from the receipts. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and from the perusal of the order of the trial Court as well as revisional Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the petitioners’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order and affirmed the order of the trial Court, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the instant CRMP being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar