1 2025:CGHC:3085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 79 of 2025 Jaikishan Sahu S/o Narrottam Sahu Aged About 28 Years Arya Nagar Kohka (Infront Of Bamleshwari Mandir) P.S. Kohka, Tehsil And District -Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Bhumika Sahu W/o Jaikishan Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/.O Village- Dhaurabhatha P.S. Gatapar Tehsil-Khairagarh District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 94 days in filing the revision is condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with Sections 438 & 442 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2024 2 passed by the Judge, Link Court, Khairagarh of Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.54/2022, whereby the said Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent, hence this revision is being filed on the following facts. 4. Brief facts of this case are that on 11.12.2020, the applicant had solemnized marriage along with the respondent according to Hindu rituals. Within two months of marriage, the respondent/wife went her parental home on the basis of allegation that the applicant used to harass her by mentally and she never come to the in-laws house. 5. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and executed affidavit and it is stated that the respondent has quarreled with the applicant and his parents without any reasons and respondent has left at her matrimonial house from her own will and when he asked to come at her in-law’s house, she refused to come back under the influence of her parents. 6. The learned Court passed the order dated 08.07.2024, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent/wife. Hence, this revision. 3 7. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the applicant has never acted with the respondent and the applicant has always try to manage his matrimonial life, but the respondent has refused to live with applicant together and hence the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set- áside impugned order dated 08.07.2024, in the interest of justice 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned trial Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent/wife. 10. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the trial Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicant/respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 4 11. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned trial Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondent has been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 (Annexure A/1). 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR