1 2025:CGHC:6675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 156 of 2025 1 - Gajendra Gautam S/o Devnath Gautam Aged About 28 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gandhi Chowk, Supela, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Pinki Gautam W/o Gajendra Gautam Aged About 26 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gandhi Chowk, Supela, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, 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 Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by First Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Durg, District-Durg, C.G. in Case No. 254/2020 arising out 2 of order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District-Durg, C.G. in Misc. Criminal Case No. 150/2019 whereby the learned Family Judge has dismissed application filed by the applicant to stay the interim maintenance order without considering the material available on record with is against the law. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent constituted application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before Judge First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Durg, District- Durg C.G. along with interim maintenance amount application alleging inter- alia that on 19.04.2023 she solemnized her marriage with the applicant according to Hindu Rites and rituals and after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members have harassed and mentally tortured the respondent in the name of dowry, due to this respondent left her matrimonial house and she is living separately. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by the both the Courts below are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of order sheet dated 03.01.2025 reveals that on 21.08.2023, the applicant filed an application stating that the respondent no. 1 has given false affidavit in the Court on 3 28.02.2020 wherein she has stated that she is unemployed whereas she is working in Lalbahadur Shastri Government Hospital, Supela. The learned Family Judge has rejected the applicant’s application dated 21.08.2023 stating that the documents presented by the applicant with respect to the salary of the respondent/wife through RTI shows that the respondent no. 1/wife was working from 01.05.2020 to 01.11.2020 therefore, the affidavit dated 14.02.2020 given by the respondent no. 1/wife that she is unemployed is not false. The applicant also filed an application dated 21.08.2023 for setting aside the order of maintenance which was also rejected by the learned Family Court. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) is neither illegal, nor perverse and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the concerned family court. The findings recorded by the family court is based upon facts. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed on merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima