1 2025:CGHC:49397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1202 of 2025 Sanjay Dubey S/o Sitaram Dubey Aged About 43 Years R/o Sundernager V.I.P. Chowk House No. 425 Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Annapurna W/o Sanjay Dubey Aged About 35 Years R/o Sundernager V.I.P. Chowk House No. 415 Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G., Present Address- Village Ganjchuwa, Thana Bhoramdev, District- Kabirdham 2 - Isaan Dubey S/o Sanjay Dubey Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian, Mother Of Respondent No. 1 Anpurna, R/o Sundernager V.I.P. Chowk House No. 415 Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G., Present Address- Village Ganjchuwa, Thana Bhoramdev, District- Kabirdham 3 - Tarun Dubey S/o Sanjay Dubey Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian, Mother Of Respondent No. 1 Anpurna, R/o Sundernager V.I.P. Chowk House No. 415 Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G., Present Address- Village Ganjchuwa, Thana Bhoramdev, District- Kabirdham ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26 /09/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 375 days in filing the instant criminal revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 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 24.05.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.131/2023, whereby the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per months to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3 as interim maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for respondent No. 1 and Rs.5,000/- each for respondents No. 2 and 3, pleading that their marriage with the applicant had been solemnized on 16.02.2004 according to Hindu customs and that two children, Isaan Dubey (respondent No.2) and Tarun Dubey (respondent No.3), were born from the wedlock. It was alleged 3 that, after some time, the applicant began to torture respondent No. 1 and refused to keep her, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home in 2022 and reside with her parents. It was further pleaded that the applicant is gainfully employed in a private company and owns agricultural land and other assets. The applicant, in his reply, denied these allegations and stated that he is regularly employed and often travels outside the city for work. He further alleged that during his absence, respondent No. 1 developed an illicit relationship with one Vikas Dubey, became pregnant, and gave birth to a child, for which he filed an application for a DNA test before the Trial Court. The Trial Court allowed the application and, by order dated 25.10.2024, directed both parties to undergo the DNA test, whereupon the applicant deposited the requisite fees through a bank challan. However, respondent No. 1 challenged this order before the High Court in W.P. No. 227/1186/2024, and by order dated 09.01.2025, the High Court stayed the effect and operation of the Trial Court’s order dated 25.10.2024 until further hearing. The applicant contends that respondent No. 1 has refused to live with him without any sufficient cause and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance. He asserts that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider these facts and illegally directed him to pay maintenance, aggrieved by which he has preferred the present revision to set aside the impugned interim order dated 24.05.2024. 4 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside. The Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence, committed factual and legal errors, and acted in violation of principles of natural justice. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is itself not maintainable as respondent No. 1, who has independent income from her parental business, left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and is not entitled to maintenance. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 has maintained illicit relations with one Vikas Dubey and others, which reinforces her disentitlement. The applicant reserves the right to urge additional grounds at the time of final hearing. 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 learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per months to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3 as interim maintenance observing the overall facts and circumstances, the Family Court holds that it is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of applicant and is father of the two minor children (respondent No.2 & 3), who are legally dependent on the applicant and lack sufficient means for their upkeep. The Court 5 further observed that the applicant has adequate earning capacity and that the wife’s separation was justified on the facts presented. Accordingly, the Family Court concluded that, interim maintenance was warranted to safeguard the welfare of the children and provide basic support to the wife till final adjudication. 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, 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