1 2025:CGHC:7857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 209 of 2025 1 - Kamlesh Bagchi S/o Shri Nirod Bagchi Aged About 39 Years R/o P.V. 124, Avinash Nagar, Pakhanjur, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ranjita Bagchi W/o Shri Kamlesh Bagchi Aged About 36 Years R/o Devpuri, Bhathapara, Near Kali Mandir, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sneha Bagchi (Minor) D/o Shri Kamlesh Bagchi Aged About 14 Years Through The Natural Guardian I.E. Appellant No. 01, Mother Smt. Ranjita Bagchi, W/o Shri Kamlesh Bagchi, R/o Devpuri, Bhathapara, Near Kali Mandir, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. The present Criminal revision is filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1989 against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Court of Second Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Raipur, in Case No. 2 283/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the interim maintenance application filed by the respondents and directed the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- to the respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3000/- to the Respondent no. 2, total Rs. 7000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondents had instituted the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and also application for interim maintenance and seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner on the ground that the respondents were subjected to cruel treatment since the marriage due to which she started residing separately. It is further contended that she has no source of income and the petitioner is engaged as teacher on daily wages. The applicant has filed his reply to the application alleging therein that Respondent no. 1 is living with another person named Paresh Swarnkar as Husband- wife and he is maintaining the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order passed by the learned family court is contrary to the facts and material available on record. The learned family court have not consider the reply filed by the petitioner and passed the order to adopt the arbitrary manner is not according to law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that it is crystal clear that the respondent no. 1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent no. 2 3 is minor daughter of the applicant. The learned Judge Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3000/- to respondent no. 2 per month, in total Rs. 7000/- per month. There is an agreement by and between the parties exhibited in the name of Sahmati Patra wherein the parties are residing separately by their mutual consent. 6. Since the answer of question whether the respondent no. 1 has sufficient reason to live separately with the applicant will be decided on merits by leading evidences, which will take time, and the respondent no. 1 has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court has allowed the application for interim maintenance. The applicant is a guest lecturer and is earning Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month and the amount of maintenance granted by the Family Court is 1/3rd of his income. 7. The object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by speedy remedy. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of a social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur does not suffer from any 4 illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error and needs no interference. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the Trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima