1 2025:CGHC:25125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 599 of 2017 Sardar Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh Aged About 42 Years S/o Sardar Mahender Singh Khanuja R/o D.S. Vatika Flat No.103, Khamhardih, Shankarnagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Jasveer Kaur, Aged About 40 Years R/o In Front Of P G B T College, Tarbahar Chowk, Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRR No. 630 of 2017 Smt. Jasveer Kaur D/o S. Jagat Singh, Aged About 40 (Presently About 44 Years) years R/o Infront Of P.G.B.T. College Tarbahar Chowk, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus S. Vikram Singh S/o S. Mahendar Singh Khanuja, Aged About 42 (Presently About 46 Years) R/o D.S. Vatika, Flat No.103, Khamhardih, Shankarnagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:48:05 +0530 2 For applicant/husband : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate in CRR No. 599 of 2017. For respondent/wife : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate in CRR No. 599 of 2017. For applicant/wife : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate in CRR No. 630 of 2017. For respondent/husband : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate in CRR No. 630 of 2017. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/husband as well as Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife. 2. The revision CRR No. 599 of 2017 has been filed by the applicant/husband with following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash the order Annexure A/1 as bad in law and unsustainable in the eyes of law. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent for playing a mischief in the Court of law by suppressing the material facts like the final decision of the order Annexure A/6 during the proceedings vide Annexure A/13. This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to permit the 3 appellant to take an adjustment of the interim maintenance amount whatever have already been paid and deposited in favour of the respondent and the amount which has deposited by the appellant vide Annexure A/16 as final alimony and settlement at the occasion dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondent to file a final settlement of account about the receiving of the amount from the appellant for the compliance of the order Annexure A/16. This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any such Yders as it deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The revision CRR No. 630 of 2017 has been filed by the applicant/wife with following prayer: “A. Allow the instant revision granting amount of maintenance as claimed in the application under Section 125. B. Grant the amount of maintenance from the date of application alongwith interest. C. Grant the amount of maintenance independently without making any adjustment from the permanent alimony. D. Grant maintenance altering the order dated 25.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by Family Court Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No.185/2013 to afore stated extent, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/husband submitted that permanent alimony has been awarded to the 4 respondent/wife, the said fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife. 5. In view of the submission made above, both the criminal revisions i.e. CRR No. 599 of 2017 & CRR No. 630 of 2017 are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri