1 2025:CGHC:41609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1009 of 2025 Shri Gurpreet Singh S/o Mahendra Singh Virdi Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Sbi Bank, Vasundhara Nagar Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Manpreet Kaur W/o Gurpreet Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhathagaon, Rawatpura Colony, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Naimat Kaur D/o Gurpreet Singh Aged About 3 Years Represented Through Her Natural Guardian Manpreet Kaur W/o Gurpreet Kaur, R/o Bhathagaon, Rawatpura Colony, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in CA No. 1850/2025, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents herein filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS claiming the maintenance from the applicant. The respondent No. 1 and the applicant were married on RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 15/10/2017. When the respondents went to her matrimonial house, her jewelers were kept by her in-laws and she was tortured on the pretext of not bringing the adequate dowry. The husband / applicant is posted as Professor in the Government Engineering College, Lakhanpur District Surguja. on 15/10/2018 when the respondent No. 1 got sick, the applicant / husband left her in the hospital and did not make any efforts for her treatment. She was informed that she is suffering from brain TV and she has to take regular medicines, but, as the husband / applicant failed to provide the amount, the respondent No. 1 had to stop the medicines. The applicant / husband used to leave his wife at Ambikapur and travelled to Bhilai which was his parental house without giving any information to the respondent/wife. She was ill treated and beaten which led to filing of a complaint on 25/10/2020 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Raipur. Subsequent to this, the wife gave birth of a girl child. Upon the request made by the respondent, the husband brought her to Ambikapur again on 20/06/2024, however, his behavior did not change and he turned his wife out of his home. The applicant is earning an amount of Rs. 90,000/- per month as salary and his father is a retired Railway employee getting pension of Rs. 14,000/- per month and is also earning Rs. 28,000/- per month as rent of residential house and shop. The main application was accompanied with an application for grant of interim maintenance. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application filed by the respondents for grant of interim maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the interim maintenance 3 to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant is no longer in any service from 20.10.2021 and since hten he does not have any source of income. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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 after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order and awarded interim maintenance to the respondents, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 9. 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