1 2025:CGHC:37943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 90 of 2022 Rasid Mohammad S/o Navi Mohammad Aged About 47 Years Cast Shekh (Muslim) R/o Sanachudi Dukan Jaistambh Chouk Ke Paas Katghora, Post Tahsil And Thana Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Afsana Begam W/o Rasid Mohammad Aged About 35 Years Cast- Shekh (Muslim) R/o Tahsil And Post And Thana Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) 2. Minor Ashriya Parveen D/o Rasid Mohammad Aged About 12 Years Natural Guardian Mother Afsana Begam W/o Rasid Mohammad, Cast Shekh (Muslim) R/o Hakeem Dukan Samne Purani Basti Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) inCase No.38/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 10:35:44 +0530 2 to pay of Rs. 6,000/- per months to the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C and Interim Maintenance before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance from the applicant. Respondent No. 1 takes plea the marriage between the parties took place at village Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) on 16/01/2002. It is alleged that the applicant was not care respondents and also applicant was illicit relation with the other women. Therefore, respondents leave the house of the applicant on 12/03/2019 and resided with her parental house at Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). The applicant has filed reply to the application filed by the respondents before the learned Family Court and denied the allegations of the respondent and also take plea that respondent want to leave separately and she left the house of the applicant, therefore applicant is not liable to pay the maintenance, because without any reason she left the house of the applicant. On 29/10/2021 the learned Family Court passed the order in the favour of the respondent and directed to the applicant to pay the Rs Rs 6,000/- per months to the respondents. The learned Family Court has wrongly considered the case of the respondents. Hence being aggrieved by the impugned order the applicant has preferred the instant revision for set aside of order dated 29/10/2021passed in the Case No. 38/2019, before the Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, preserve based on evidence and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record vide passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffered from factual and legal infirmity. It is not 3 proof that the applicant has illicit relation with any other. Therefore she is not entitled any maintenance. Respondent no.1 has filed divorce petition against the applicant, it is clear that the respondent does not want to live with the applicant. The finding of learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the material available on record. The learned Family Court passed the order on 29/10/2021 is illegal and contrary to the law. The impugned order is illegal, bad in law and deserved to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent No. 1 are husband and wife, and Applicant No. 2 is their adopted daughter. The respondents are residing separately from the applicant, and the applicant is not providing for their maintenance. The facts raised by both parties are matters to be determined through evidence. Accordingly, the application is partly allowed, and the applicant is directed to pay a monthly interim maintenance of ₹6,000 to the respondents until further orders. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned 4 forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti