1 2025:CGHC:8231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1460 of 2024 1 - Sunil Kumar Mishra S/o Santosh Mishra Aged About 42 Years At Muskan Residency, New Changorabhata, Shiv Nagar, Kushalpur Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Mishra W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 39 Years D/o Lalta Prasad Sharma, 2 - Divyanshi Mishra D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 21 Years 3 - Minor Ku. Pratika Mishra D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 7 Years Through Next Of Kin Mother, Smt. Mamta Mishra W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra 4 - Mehak Mishra D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 18 Years 5 - Minor Raunak Mishra D/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra Aged About 16 Years Through Next Of Kin Mother, Smt. Mamta Mishra W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra All are R/o At Sector 1, Shankar Nagar, Near Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate through legal Aid. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/02/2025 Heard on admission. 2. The present revision is filed against the impugned order dated 8.10.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur in M.C.C. No. 858/2024 whereby the court below has allowed the interim maintenance application filed by the non-applicants and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- each to non- applicants 2 to 5 as maintenance. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that after about 28 years of marriage, the non-applicant No.1/wife has alleged that the applicant ill treated and assaulted her. He submits that the maintenance amount awarded to the non-applicants is on the higher side and without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the order has been passed. He submits that the non-applicant No.1 along with her children is residing with her parents and is therefore not liable for any maintenance. He submits that the non-applicant is living in adultery. 4. The contention of the counsel for the applicant that the non- applicant No.1 is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of property and is living in adultery, it is a matter of defence and would be decided by the Family Court on merits. Since it is a matter of grant of interim maintenance to the applicant, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Revision is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.22 13:41:17 +0530