1 2025:CGHC:50850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1117 of 2022 1 - Lekru Pradhan S/o Late Jayram Pradhan Aged About 77 Years R/o Village - Bhathli (Sariya), Police Station - Sariya, Tahsil - Baramkela, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Hemsagar Pradhan S/o Lekru Pradhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bhathli (Sariya), Police Station - Sariya, Tahsil - Baramkela, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Damrudhar Pradhan S/o Lekru Pradhan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Bhathli (Sariya), Police Station - Sariya, Tahsil - Baramkela, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Smt. Mithila Gupta W/o Lekru Pradhan Aged About 76 Years Occupation - Nill, R/o Village - Bhathli, At Present Tinmiti, Tahsil - Pussore, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Hafeez Baig, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Case No. 28/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant No.1 that he has to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 per month to the respondent as interim maintenance. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, stating therein that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant No.1 and she is living separately and the applicant No.1 is not giving single penny towards her maintenance, though the respondent has no source of income and the applicant No.1 is liable for giving maintenance of the respondent, therefore, she filed application under Section 125 of CrPC. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant No.1 that he has to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent as interim maintenance. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 is an old and infirm person and he has no personal source of income, in fact he is dependent upon his sons applicants No. 2 and 3, who are taking care of the applicant No.1, and the respondent is living separately from the applicants without any sufficient reasons. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order and awarded interim maintenance to the respondents, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar