1 2025:CGHC:8870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 248 of 2025 Asit Kumar Sinha S/o Late Gauri Shankar Singh aged about 41 years, R/o Near Majar, Shankar Nivas,kelabadi, Tahsil And Dist.- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus 1 - Smt. Mausmi Sinha W/o Asit Kumar Sinha aged about 36 years, R/o Near Majar, Shankar Nivas, Kelabadi, Tahsil and Dist.- Durg (C.G.). 2 - Ku. Mohita Sinha D/o Asit Kumar Sinha aged about 12 years, natural guardian mother Smt. Mausmi Sinha, R/o Near Majar, Shankar Nivas, Kelabadi, Tahsil and Dist.- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 20/02/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 975/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance total amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. Hence this revision is being filed on the following facts. 2. Brief facts of this case are that on 29.06.2004, the applicant had solemnized marriage along with respondent no. 1 according to Hindu Custom since then the respondent no. 1 was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on their wedlock, the respondent no. 2 born. As per allegation made by the respondent no. 1 is that after 15 days of of their marriage, the respondent No. 1 subjected to cruelty, ill treatment from the applicant and his family members by using filthy language and hence the respondent no. 1 has shifted to the applicant’s house in first floor and did not give any amount for maintenance. The respondent no. 1 has no any source of income to survival and applicant is working as Property Dealer and hence the respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance with application for seeking interim maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month for her and Rs. 20,000/- per month for her minor child against the applicant. 3. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied all averments pleaded in the application and executed affidavit and it is stated that the respondent no. 1 has quarreled with the applicant without any reasons and respondent No. 1 resides separately with respondent No. 2 in the first floor of the applicant’s house. 3 4. The learned Family Court passed the order dated 07.11.2024, whereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent No. 2 and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further contended that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the applicant has never acted with the respondent and the applicant has always try to manage his matrimonial life, but the respondent no. 1 has refused to live with applicant together and hence the interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside and it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set aside impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh or granted interim maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month may be reduced, in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. 8. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife has no source of income, she is residing in the 4 first floor of the applicant’s house with her minor daughter/respondent No.2 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the respondent No. 2 under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 9. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Family Court, Durg (C.G.). 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Uttej