1 2025:CGHC:5231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 128 of 2025 Kartik Vishwas S/o Late Nishikant Vishwas Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ravindra Nagar, Police Station - Jainagar, Tehsil - Latori, District - Surajpur (CG). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Java Vishwas W/o Kartik Vishwas Aged About 30 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Police Station - Gandhinagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur District- Surguja. 2 - Ku. Muskan Vishwas D/o Kartik Vishwas Aged About 11 Years Through Mother Smt. Java Vishwas, R/o Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 2, Police Station - Gandhinagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur District - Surguja (CG). ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 29/01/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family 2 Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.109/2023, whereby the Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.6,000/- per month in which Rs.4,000/- for respondent No.1, Rs.2,000/- for respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- as lump sum for litigation, hence this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the marriage of Applicant and the Respondent No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu/Bengali rituals and out of their wedlock two children were born including the minor Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under S. 125 of CrPC against the Applicant before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur seeking maintenance for her and minor Respondent No. 2 who lives with her, from the Applicant stating that the Applicant who works as a skilled Contractor has extra marital affair with a woman named Yamuna Singh and he expelled Respondents No. 1 and 2 from house and also the Applicant's mother and brother harass her. Social meeting was held to settle the dispute after which the Applicant taken the respondents back to his house, but before 8-9 months from the date of submitting the application, the Applicant again expelled both with deadly threats. Therefore, she is living separately from the applicant and made a prayer for Rs. 10,000/- maintenance for each Respondents. 3 3. The Applicant submitted his reply by denying the pleadings made by the Respondent No. 1 and stated that the Applicant is willing to continue his conjugal obligation with the Respondent No. 1 and ready to keep her with him in his house, but the Respondent No. 1 herself has left the matrimonial house and living separately from the Applicant along with the Respondent No.2. The Applicant denied to have harassed or assaulted the Respondent No. 1 ever and also submitted that the Respondent No. 1 is not ready to take care of old and infirm mother of the Applicant and the Respondent No. 1 is having an illicit extra marital affair and physical relations with one Sanjeet Sarkar who lives in village Ajirama and since Sanjeet Sarkar worked with the Applicant he used to visit the house of the Applicant frequently where the Respondent No. 1 developed physical relations with him which has been seen by eider son of the Applican 4. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Family Court, Ambikapur passed the impugned Order dated 13.11.2024 in Mise. Criminal Case No. 109/2023 and allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed to the Applicant to provide monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- to the Respondent No. 2 till her attaining majority along with Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation to the Respondent No. 1. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, 4 arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that the Applicant has denied having extra marital affair with any woman. The learned Court below has wrongly concluded that the applicant has an extra marital affair on the basis of a photograph which does not exhibit any kind of such presumption. He further contended that Respondent No. 1 has willfully left the house of the Applicant along with the Respondent No. 2 and therefore, she is not entitle to any maintenance. However, it has been pleaded by the Applicant that he is ready to keep the Respondents in his house which has been ignored by the learned Court below. Respondent-wife has adopted the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to gain monetary benefit from the Appellant while she herself has deserted the society of the Applicant without any cause and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance and hence the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set- áside impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim 5 maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.2,000/- for litigation). 8. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor daughter/respondent No.2 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicants/respondents under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 9. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent No.1 were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the total amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 6 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant