1 2025:CGHC:27423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1182 of 2018 Naveenchand Dhruv S/o Thakur Ram Dhruw Aged About 57 Years R/o Working As Headmaster Un The Govt. Primary School Riko, Sankul Kendra Mandir Hasaud Tahsil Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus Smt. Jayanti Bai Dhruv W/o Naveen Chand Dhruw Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Jhadmokhali, Post Office ,jhadmokhali ,police Station Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent Along with CRR No. 1198 of 2018 Naveenchand Dhruv S/o Thakur Ram Dhruv Aged About 53 Years Working As Headmaster In The Govt. Primary School Riko, Sankul Kendra Mandir Hasaud, P.S. Mandir Hasuad, Tahsil- Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus Smt. Jayanti Bai Dhruv W/o Naveenchand Dhruv Aged About 43 Years R/o- Village Jhadmokhali, Police Station Ranitarai, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.09.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 498/2016 and 890/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Durg, dismissed the application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by the applicant and allowed the application under Section 125(3) of CrPC filed by the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amount from the applicant and vide order dated 15.07.2002 the learned J.M.F.C. in M.J.C. No. 137/1999 allowed the said application and ordered for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 600/- and since then the applicant is paying the same to the non-applicant. In the year 2006 an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant for enhancement of maintenance amount which was dismissed by the learned 3rd Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg on dated 22.11.2006. Thereafter the non-applicant filed a criminal revision No. 14/2007 against the order dated 22.11.2006 which was allowed by this Court on 10.07.2014 and this Court was kind enough to enhance the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. Meanwhile the applicant filed a civil suit for grant of decree of divorce and for dissolution of the marriage dated 23.06.1989 and vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 the learned 3rd Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg passed a decree in favour of applicant in Civil Suit No. 113-A/2014. During pendency of the above declaratory suit the non-applicant filed an application under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of permanent alimony which was allowed by the learned Famiily Court and in judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 the learned Family Court 3 ordered for grant of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was duly paid by the applicant. Till the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 the applicant has complied with the order dated 14.07.2014 and paid enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- per month till 15.09.2015. When the learned Family Court ordered for permanent alimony as Rs. 5,00,000/- the applicant paid the same and stopped paying monthly maintenance which was ordered by the learned Family Court and later on the amount enhanced by this Court. Again the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance from 24.08.2015 to 24.06.2016 despite of receiving the permanent alimony. Therefore the applicant filed above application under Section 127(3)(B) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to stop the monthly maintenance to the non-applicant. The non-applicant has also preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015 stating that the permanent alimony amount granted by the Family Court is very low and the above case is registered as F.A.M. No. 67/2016 before this Court in which also the applicant has appeared and contesting the above F.A.M. The learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 22.09.2018, dismissed the application of applicant. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per status of applicant the learned Family Court has awarded a permanent alimony of Rs. 5,00,000/- was duly paid by applicant therefore the order of grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not survive. In suit for divorce the non-applicant herself has filed an application for permanent alimony which was allowed by learned Family Court, but due to the greediness the non-applicant want to receive monthly maintenance apart of receiving permanent alimony which is not sustainable as per law. It is 4 further submitted that the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage passed on 15.09.2015 and the applicant has paid the monthly maintenance amount till 15.09.2015 and the permanent alimony has been paid to non-applicant, thus, the order for monthly maintenance suo moto does not survive, therefore the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 the judgment and decree for dissolution of marriage was passed on 15.09.2015 and the applicant has paid the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- till 15.09.2015, and the permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- has also been paid to non-applicant by the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the present revision is disposed of. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar