1 2025:CGHC:37933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 938 of 2025 Smt. Devlaxmi Dhritlahre W/o Shailendre Kumar Dhritlahre D/o Shree Bharat Singh Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Present Address- Village Pachri, Thana- Patewa, District- Mahasamund, Permanent Address- Village Khpri Kosrangi, Thana- Aarang, District- Raipur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Shailendre Kumar Dhritlahre S/o Shree Hariyer Das Dhritlahre Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khpri Kosrangi, Thana- Aarang, District- Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 1213 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order of the concerned Family Court registered Miscellaneous Criminal Case. No. 1002/19, Smt. Devlaxmi Dhritlahre Vs. Shailendre Kumar Dhritlahre, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 10.01.2016. After six month of marriage, the health of the applicant deteriorated, but instead of providing her medical treatment, the non-applicant sent her back to her parental home. The applicant’s father spent approximately ₹1,00,000/- on her treatment. The non-applicant has not returned to take the applicant back since he left her during her illness. At the Women’s Police Station, Mahasamund, the non-applicant had assured to pay ₹2,00,000/- towards her medical expenses, but he has not paid any amount so far. Since the marriage, the non-applicant has been physically and mentally abusing the applicant through verbal insults and harassment. The applicant has no source of income, whereas the non-applicant earns approximately ₹30,000/- per month. Therefore, she filed an application, requested that the applicant be granted a monthly interim maintenance amount of ₹15,000/-. 5. The non-applicant, while accepting the applicant as his wife, has submitted a reply stating that it was the applicant herself who insisted on going to her parental home during her illness, and therefore, he had dropped her there. About a week later, when he went to bring her back, her parents refused to send her. Even in the presence of village elders, the applicant’s father refused to send her back. The applicant is staying at her parental home voluntarily without any valid reason. The non-applicant is willing to keep the applicant with him. He works 3 as a daily wage laborer. Therefore, it is prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. After due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court concerned was passed an order dated 14.01.2020, whereby the interim application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was partly allowed and the applicant was granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Thereafter, the proceedings continued; however, on 15.12.2021, when the matter was listed before the learned Family Court for final hearing, both parties remained absent, due to which the learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.12.2021, was constrained to dismiss the main application for want of prosecution. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said dismissal order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from factual and legal infirmity. He further submits that during session of covid-19 has explore all over states therefore applicant is lady and he presently resides in district Mahasmund therefore she not known about her hearing date and upon the hearing both the party the learned Family Court has grant the interim maintenance of rupees only 3000/- out of 15,000/- it is illegal arbitrary and against the provision of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be set- aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings 4 and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court concerned was passed the order dated 14.01.2020, whereby the interim application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was partly allowed and the applicant was granted interim maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month. Thereafter, the proceedings continued; however, on 15.12.2021, when the matter was listed before the learned Family Court for final hearing, both parties remained absent, due to which the learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.12.2021, was constrained to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. 10. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court concerned has rightly passed the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal