1 2025:CGHC:45877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1306 of 2019 Tevendra Hirwani S/o J. R. Hirwani Aged About 33 Years R/o N. T. P. C. Lara 401424 Rajtashri House, Kotra Road, Raigarh District Balod Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Madrapara, Balconagar, Police Station Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kanti Sahu W/o Tevendra Hiewani Aged About 28 Years R/o Near New Bus Stand, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundi District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Jiya Hirwani D/o Tevendra Hirwani Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Kanti Sahu W/o Tevendra Hirwani, R/o Near New Bus Stand, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Doundi District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Dutt holding the brief of Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Prakhar Dutt, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Anil Tripathi on I.A. No.01/2019, which is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2019 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Circuit / Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.02/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, while entertaining an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, along with an application seeking interim maintenance, alleging that after the marriage, respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws over dowry demands and was ultimately ousted from the matrimonial home. As a result, she has been residing at her parental home along with her minor children, and the applicant has failed to provide any financial support. In response, the applicant filed a detailed reply denying the allegations, asserting that he never subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty and that he always maintained a cordial relationship. He stated that following a previous settlement in an earlier proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 returned to the matrimonial home but left after a month to pursue 3 her LL.B. course and never returned, despite his efforts. It was also submitted that she is living separately without any reasonable cause, is well-educated, employed in a private job, and financially independent, thus not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that respondent No.1 had earlier filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was dismissed by the learned JMFC, Dallirajhara, by order dated 23.07.2018. Her appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 26/2018, was also dismissed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, by order dated 16.04.2019. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 10.05.2019, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. The Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and did not return despite repeated efforts made by the applicant. It is also overlooked that the applicant never subjected her to cruelty or dowry demands. Previously, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No.1, which was settled, and she briefly returned to the matrimonial home before leaving again to pursue her LL.B., never to return. Moreover, respondent No.1 is 4 well-educated, gainfully employed in a private job, and financially independent, thus not entitled to maintenance. The learned Court also failed to consider that her earlier application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed by both the JMFC and the appellate court, further indicating the lack of merit in her allegations. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court, while entertaining an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the marital relationship between the parties, the minor daughter born out of the wedlock, and the applicant’s current employment as an engineer in a private company earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month, the Court found that he is financially capable of maintaining his wife and child. Although the respondent-wife was alleged to be earning a small income, no conclusive evidence was presented to prove her current employment or substantial earnings. Therefore, the Court held that the husband has both a legal and moral duty to provide maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court granted interim maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. 5 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court while granting interim maintenance to the respondents, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil