1 2025:CGHC:50145 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1219 of 2025 Yogendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Sahas Kumar Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Bansula Deepa Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Bharti Sahu W/o Yogendra Kumar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o C/o. Father Shri Dayashankar Sahu, House No. 1831 Behind Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank Mathpuraina Road, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /10/2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.1395/2024, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that, the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu customs at Tirupati Balaji Bhawan, Bhathagaon, Raipur (C.G.) on 21.11.2021, and out of their wedlock one son was born. Initially, both resided together peacefully as husband and wife. However, after some time of marriage, the applicant allegedly started harassing and mentally torturing the respondent on account of inadequate dowry and also made monetary demands. Due to the cruelty meted out by the applicant, the respondent left her matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. The respondent, having no independent source of income, submitted that the applicant is employed as Head Collection at Berar Finance, earning approximately Rs.40,000/- per month, and also has agricultural land generating an annual income of about Rs.8,00,000/- along with an Aata Chakki business earning around Rs.50,000/- annually. On this basis, the respondent filed the present application seeking maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month for herself and her minor son, along with interim maintenance of the same amount. After issuance of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all the allegations and opposing the 3 interim maintenance application. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed the impugned order dated 23.07.2025, allowing the respondent’s application and directing the applicant to pay Rs.9,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance, hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned interim maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant. The respondent never wished to live with the applicant and his family and is seeking a decree of divorce, whereas the applicant has already filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saraipali, Mahasamund (C.G.). Furthermore, the applicant has always been willing to cohabit with the respondent and even agreed to live separately from his parents, making efforts to amicably settle the dispute before community members. Further, as per the Tahsildar’s enquiry report, the applicant does not own any agricultural land and the allegations regarding his income are false. Moreover, the applicant has also resigned from his private job on 13.09.2024, while the respondent is a well- educated lady (PGDCA) and was employed as an accountant in a plastic company, hence, she is capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has granted Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the Family Court, after considering the pleadings and documents on record, observed that at this stage no finding could be given on the allegations of cruelty or physical assault, as those issues require evidence. However, it remained undisputed that the applicant is the husband of respondent and hence bears the responsibility for their maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court granted interim maintenance to the respondent as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 9. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a 5 period of three months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil