1 2025:CGHC:25099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 783 of 2017 Smt. Suman Mutha W/o Praveen Mutha, Aged About 36 Years R/o Dharam Nagar, Ahead Narendra Kirana Shop, Pachpedhi Naka, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Praveen Mutha S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Mutha, Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. C / 77 Shailendra Nagar, Pachpedhi Naka, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 19:05:39 +0530 2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and non-applicant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 21.01.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baijnathpara, Raipur. Currently, both are living separately. After the marriage, the applicant and non- applicant were living together in a rented house. However, after some time, the non-applicant started physically assaulting the applicant and subjected her to cruelty. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur, which was decided on the basis of a compromise between the parties in Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. The non-applicant agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant towards her maintenance. However, despite the order of the Lok Adalat, the non-applicant is not paying the monthly maintenance amount to the applicant, due to which she is unable to maintain herself in the present societal circumstances. The applicant has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, along with an application for grant of interim relief. Vide order dated 17.10.2016, the learned JMFC, Raipur directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- as interim maintenance to the applicant. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2016, the non-applicant 3 filed an appeal before the learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, and vide impugned order dated 28.03.2017, the learned appellate Court reduced the interim maintenance amount from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.03.2017 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore, liable to be set aside/quashed. He submits that the learned appellate Court failed to consider that, in 2013, the non- applicant had agreed before the Lok Adalat to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant. However, while filing the appeal before the learned appellate Court, he falsely claimed that his salary is only Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is baseless and incorrect. He also submits that the non-applicant has failed to pay even the maintenance amount that was ordered by the Lok Adalat and agreed to by him. He further submits that learned appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the interim order passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur. He submits that in the present societal context, the interim amount awarded by the learned JMFC, Raipur is not on the higher side. Hence the order passed by learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 28.03.2017 is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 28.03.2017, in 4 Criminal Appeal No. 257/2016. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order of the appellate Court, it was held that Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act also stated that relief could be sought by the aggrieved person in any legal proceeding affecting the respondent, before any civil Court, family Court, or criminal Court — whether such proceeding had been instituted before or after the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. However, the verification of the non-applicant’s employment and financial resources through evidence was still pending. As per the order of the Family Court, the appellant had already been paying Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the non-applicant was not making regular payments of Rs. 5,000/- per month as directed by the Family Court. In light of this argument, it became evident at that stage that the cumulative amount of Rs. 5,000/- (as per the previous order) and Rs. 4,000/- (interim maintenance under the impugned order) was excessive for the non-applicant, and therefore, he was unwilling to make the payment. In such a situation, it appeared necessary to interfere with the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Therefore, the interim amount of Rs. 4,000/- was modified to Rs. 2,000/- per month. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed. Therefore, order 5 passed by the learned appellate Court, Raipur, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek