1 2025:CGHC:27082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 172 of 2024 Ashish Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Rajkumar Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Turi Hatri Purani Basti Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Annapurna Agrawal W/o Shri Ashish Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years D/o Late Shri Subhash Agrawal R/o Presently At Anirudha Singh Thakur, Infront Of Primary School Durga Mandir Chowk, Kushalpur Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adityadhar Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Adityadhar Diwan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.06/2023, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are that the marriage between applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 12.06.2012 at Raipur. Thereafter, the respondent went to Pune to live in her matrimonial house with the petitioner and his parents in Pune. After marriage, due to the unnatural behavior and lies, from 3.5.2013 both the parties were started living separately, Thereafter present applicant/ husband filed an application under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the case was registered as Case No. 193A/13 before First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.), during course of investigation she also filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, whereby on 10.10.2013, applicant was directed to pay Rs.2,000 to the respondent / wife as interim maintenance till the pendency of the case. However, 27.01.2014 respondent / wife denied to accept any money from the petitioner the same was recorded in the order-sheet dated 27.01.2014 in case no. 193A/13 before First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) , however, the said case was withdrawn on the ground of technicality. 4. The respondent / wife preferred two applications one under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance and another under Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce, and upon those applications 3 one case on 29.12.2022 was registered. The respondent wife also preferred an application for interim maintenance on the same day i.e. on 29.12.2022. The applicant herein has duly responded to the said application by filling reply on her application on 07.09.2023. Thereafter, the Family Court has passed an order and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent towards interim maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent is not living with the applicant and it is pertinent to note that the parties were married in 2012 and have been living separately since 2013. Moreover, overlooking the principle of promissory estoppel on earlier occasion she also denied requirement of money. He further submits that learned Family court also failed to consider the fact that as the incident pertains to the year 2013 and the respondent has intentionally filed the application after 10 years to harass the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.06/2023 vide order dated 06.12.2023. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance and directed the pay Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent towards interim maintenance observing that the respondent stated that his marriage to the respondent was solemnized on 12.06.2012, according to Hindu customs. It is undisputed that the respondent is wife of the applicant and is currently living separately from him. The reasons for their separation are disputed and require evidence to be proven. Given the undisputed fact that the respondent is the wife of applicant and is living separately, the respondent has a duty to provide maintenance to the applicant. The respondent claimed that the applicant earns over Rs.1 lakh per month from property dealing, but provided no documents to support this. The applicant, on the other hand, stated that he earns a modest income from occasional property transactions on a commission basis. Both parties submitted affidavits as per the Supreme Court's directions. The respondent stated she is a 12th pass, while the applicant claimed he earns Rs.5,000-6,000/- per month from property transactions. After considering the parties' social and economic status, the Family Court found it justifiable to award the respondent an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000 per month from the applicant. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Needless to say that the Family Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.c. expeditiously, if there is no legal impediment. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil