1 2026:CGHC:7382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 362 of 2022 Yogesh Yadav S/o Santosh Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Ganesh Chowk, Chingraj Para, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rekha Yadav W/o Yogesh Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Amali,police Station Kota, Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Master Siddharth Yadav S/o Yogesh Yadav, Aged About 4 Years Being Minor Through His Natural Guardian Smt. Rekha Yadav W/o Yogesh Yadav, A/a 25 Years, R/o Village Amali, Police Station Kota, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Arvind SHrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “i) call for the entire record of learned court below pertaining to the present matter, and ii) set aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2022, Misc passed in Misc. Criminal case no.758/2019 by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.11 15:05:33 +0530 2 Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.).” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 were married on 10.05.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a son, namely Siddharth Yadav (Respondent No. 2), who is presently residing with respondent No. 1 (his mother). The respondents filed an application before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to meet their expenses relating to food, clothing, residence, medical needs, and education. According to the respondents, the applicant is a property dealer and used to earn Rs. 50,000/- per month, and also possesses movable and immovable properties from which he derives additional income. It was further alleged by respondent No. 1 that the applicant had a suspicious nature and used to cast aspersions on her character, suspecting her relationship with her brother-in-law. 4. The applicant opposed the said application, stating that he is wholly dependent upon his father. He was previously employed in a private job, but due to disputes between him and respondent No. 1, he lost his employment and is presently jobless. The applicant further submitted that respondent No. 1 is a well-educated woman and is capable of earning and maintaining herself as well as the minor son. It was also contended that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance as she voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient cause. It was alleged that she led an autocratic lifestyle and did not show due respect towards the applicant. At present, respondent No. 1 is residing at her parental home. 3 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court, vide the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 758/2019, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month (Rs. 1,000/- to each respondent). The said order was passed despite the fact that the applicant was already paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents in compliance with the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court (Annexure P/2) in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law and facts. The same has been passed without there being any material on record to justify the relief claimed. Once maintenance has been granted under any provision of law, the grant of the same maintenance again under another provision amounts to duplication. Maintenance is awarded to provide livelihood to the claimant, and once such arrangement has been made by a competent court, the same cannot be granted repeatedly under different statutory provisions for the same purpose. He submits that learned Family Court failed to observe that the respondents are not entitled to the maintenance allowance as prayed for, as they are already receiving Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant pursuant to the order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Criminal Revision No. 979/2017, titled Yogesh Yadav vs. Smt. Rekha Yadav. He submits that learned Family Court failed to observe that no specific grounds for grant of interim maintenance were mentioned in the petition. The grounds stated therein relate to the main relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and not specifically to interim maintenance. Learned Family Court failed to 4 distinguish between maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and maintenance in the nature of interim relief. Learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the facts regarding the financial capacity and incapacity of the applicant and the respondents. The Court, by merely referring to the allegations, drew inferences and granted relief without any proper basis or supporting material on record. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to observe that on the same grounds the respondents are already receiving maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month vide order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High Court (supra). While expenses of proceedings may constitute an additional factor creating a need for separate consideration, the basic requirement of maintenance on account of food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, and education remains one and the same. Separate maintenance allowances, whether final or interim, cannot be granted for the same purpose. The respondents already have an order of maintenance in their favour vide order dated 09.08.2018 of the Hon’ble High Court. In the present matter, the respondents neither pleaded nor established any specific need for litigation expenses. Therefore, the impugned relief granted without any pleading, evidence, or proof is per se illegal and unjustified, and deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, 5 upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 1000/- each to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek