1 2025:CGHC:26834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1311 of 2024 Smt. Bindiya Dansena D/o Parasram Ijardar, W/o Rakesh Dansena Aged About 32 Years Occupation - Nothing, R/o Village - Godam, Tahsil - Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rakesh Dansena S/o Mahesh Lal Dansena Aged About 38 Years Occupation - Business, R/o Village - Chhapora, Tahsil - Pusaur, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Roop Ram Naik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23 /06/202 5 1. Heard Mr. Roop Ram Naik, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None for the respondent. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C. No.F109/2023, whereby PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:08:46 +0530 2 learned Family Court has granted Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant/wife in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that applicant and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2017 at village Godam, Tahsil and District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh as per the Hindu rites and rituals and their running customs. After the marriage, applicant was residing at her matrimonial house where husband, mother-in-law and father-in- law and brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) were also residing together and was subjected to mental, physical and financial cruelty but she tried to manage with the respondent. The Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Right against the applicant. The applicant has filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent and his family members. During pendency of the above cases on 20.06.2018 the compromise has been done between the parties and they agreed to reside together. 5. The applicant and respondent were residing jointly about 35 days in the house of the respondent/husband. On 24.07.2018 the applicant and respondent went to Sarangarh to attend the proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Thereafter the respondent left the applicant in the Court premises of Sarangarh thereafter they are 3 living separately. On 13.09.2023 the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raigarh for grant of maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Thereafter on 02.05.2024 the respondent filed reply of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and denied the claim of the applicant and prayed for rejecting the application for grant of maintenance. On 09.09.2024 the respondent filed affidavit before the learned Family Court and conceal the facts and also contention of declaration is under the Indian Penal Code which has already been repealed but the learned Family Court has overlooked the said facts. The respondent has stated that the applicant is running beauty parlor and cloth store and is getting of Rs. 20,000/- per month but the applicant has not filed any relevant document, hence he is liable to punish. Thereafter, learned Family Court after considering facts and circumstance of the case has passed an order and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards interim maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has granted only Rs.2,000/- per month interim maintenance, which is very lower side, whereas the demand was for Rs.15,000/- as per the status of respondent. Further, learned Family Court ought to have considered that the interim maintenance should be allowed from the date of institution of applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. i.e. 13.09.2023. He further submits that applicant 4 presently residing in her parental house, her mother has died in the year 2023 and her father has attended the age of 70 years, applicant ha no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself and she has sufficient reason to leave the house of respondent, therefore, the order passed by learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has granted Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards interim maintenance observing the affidavit filed by both the parties regarding their income and liabilities. The applicant has not mentioned any occupation, while the respondent claims to be a laborer. Neither party has provided concrete documents regarding each other's income. Further, the Family Court relying on the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court, in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja (AIR 2017 SC 2138), in which it has held that even if a divorce decree is granted, the wife is entitled to maintenance observed that the respondent, being the applicant's husband, has a moral and legal obligation to provide maintenance, and hence, considering the said circumstances, the Family Court has partly allowed the application of interim maintenance filed by the respondent and granted Rs.2,000/- to 5 respondent towards interim maintenance, which is not on lower side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Family court concerned shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti