1 2025:CGHC:6673 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 155 of 2025 1 - Rajib Mishra S/o Debbrat Mishra Aged About 44 Years Working As Assistant Manager (F And B) Sayaji Raipur Hotel, G.E. Road, Behind Magneto Mall, Jivan Vihar, Ps. Telibancha, Raipur (C.G.). --- R/o Flat No. 304, Kashi Apartment, Gitanjali Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Ps - Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Kriti Mishra W/o Rajib Mishra Aged About 43 Years R/o Flat No. 602, Kashi Apartment, Gitanjali Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Ps Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Kumari Avantika Mishra D/o Rajib Mishra, Aged About 12 Years R/o Flat No. 602, Kashi Apartment, Gitanjali Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Ps - Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) --- (Minor Through The Legal Guardian Kriti Mishra, Non Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 438 R/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 2 26.11.2024 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the concerned Court was pleased to grant the interim maintenance in view of the application dated 18.01.2024 filed by the non-applicants herein under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before it bearing case no. 109/2024. 2. Facts-in-brief is that the applicant and the respondent no. 1 got married on 23.02.2008 in West Bengal. Things however did not go smooth between the spouses, as the applicant started physically harassing non-applicant No.: 1. Out of their wedlock, the non- applicant No.: 2 was born on 13.06.2011. That, thereafter, after three months of the birth of non-applicant No.: 2, the non- applicants returned to stay with the applicant at Kolkata but applicant's behaviour did not change. Being harassed, the non- applicants in October 2012 moved to stay at non-applicant No.: 1's maternal home, and the applicant went to Hyderabad for his job purposes.The applicant tried to console the non-applicant No.: 1 and as such she came to live with him at Hyderabad. However, after sometime, the applicant started behaving as he used to behave in the past. Thereafter, in the year 2016, while residing in Kolkata, the non-applicant No.: 1 became pregnant, however due to alleged force from applicant, she had a miscarriage on 11.06.2016. In the same year, the applicant moved to Shimla alone and thereafter in 2018 he brought the non-applicants to Chandigarh. Soon thereafter, the applicant brought the non- applicants to his ancestral village in Murshidabad and after some 3 time left alone for Manali for a job. The applicant in the year 2023 was appointed as Assistant Manager (Foods & Beverages) in Sayaji Hotels Limited, Raipur, that is when the non-applicants came to reside with the applicant in Raipur. It was alleged that constant mental and physical harassment kept happening over the years, and due to such constant harassment, the non- applicant No.: 1 on 25.12.2023 filed a written complaint against the applicant before the Mahila Thana, Raipur (CG). Thereafter, since 02.12.2023, the non-applicants are living separately from the applicant in a rented place in Raipur. Meanwhile, on 01.06.2023, the non-applicant No.: 1 was employed as an Assistant Teacher in a private school, earning Rs. 18,000.00 per month. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent no. 1 herself has admitted that she is working as Assistant Teacher in a private school and is earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. Therefore, she is able to maintain herself and her child. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. From perusal of record it is crystal clear that respondent no. 1 is the wife of applicant and respondent no. 2 is daughter of applicant. The respondent no. 1 along with her daughter (respondent no. 2) left the applicant’s home after she believed that the behaviour of applicant is not changing. Though it is an admitted fact that the respondent no. 1 is working as an Assistant 4 Teacher in a private school and is earning monthly, but, mere separation of the husband and wife does not release the husband from the duty of maintaining her wife and children. It is the social duty of the husband to maintain her wife and children. Also, the applicant is working as Assistant Manager (Foods & Beverages) in Sayaji Hotels Limited, Raipur and is earning Rs. 9,27,684/- annually. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court believes that the Family Court has rightly passed the order and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 5,000/- to respondent no. 2, in total Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance which does not suffer from any illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error and needs no interference. 7. However, the learned Family Court is directed that without prejudice to the order of this Court, decide the matter expeditiously on merits. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima