1 2026:CGHC:1655 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 41 of 2026 Karuna Verma W/o Hari Kumar Verma Aged About 54 Years R/o Plot No. 5, Near Suraj Bakery, Ispat Nagar, Risali, P.S.- Nevai, Post- Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt.- Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus Hari Kumar Verma S/o Late Tahal Singh Verma Aged About 61 Years R/o Village And Post - Marra, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg, C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Chetna Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Cr.MJC No. 1069/2021, whereby the learned Family Court cancelled the interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month granted to the applicant with retrospective date. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and respondent are wife and husband their marriage solemnized as per Hindu rites on 30.05.1991. Due to the misbehavior and bad treatment meted out to the applicant coupled with deserting the applicant and not maintaining RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 her by the respondent the applicant was forced to file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The respondent has filed his reply to the application for grant of interim maintenance. By order dated 20.01.2022 interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- was granted to the applicant. The respondent was never regular in payment of the interim maintenance so the applicant filed an application for payment of the interim maintenance by deducting from the salary of the respondent. The respondent tried every trick in the book to delay the trial and was never regular in payment of the interim maintenance. On 10.06.2024 the evidence of the applicant was closed and the case was fixed for the respondent's evidence. Thereafter the respondent started delaying the trial and instead of submitting his evidence he started filing frivolous applications for delaying the trial. The respondent repeatedly sought adjournment for producing his evidence. On 19.11.2024 the respondent was again directed to submit his statement and his witnesses statement and the case was fixed for 08.01.2025. 4. On 08.01.2025 the respondent filed an application with prayer for direction to the applicant that she provide the documents mentioned in the application so that pension of the respondent can be started and he may pay the interim maintenance of last three months. The applicant submitted a reply mentioning that the documents sought by the respondent are already with him and he had never asked the applicant for providing the documents and application has been filed to delay the payment of interim maintenance. By order dated 14.01.2025 the learned 1st Additional Principal Family Judge, Durg directed the applicant to provide all the documents as mentioned and further directed that the respondent will be the sole person to operate the joint 3 account which is to be opened. The learned Trial Court also mentioned that if the applicant does not cooperate with the respondent adverse presumption will be drawn against her. On very next date of hearing i.e. 21.02.2025 the respondent submitted an application for cancelling the order granting interim maintenance. Along with a separate application filed under Section 10 (1) of Family Courts Act, 1984. Thereafter on 25.03.2025 the applicant submitted reply to the application for cancelling the interim maintenance. Then on 28.04.2025, 05.06.2025, 28.06.2025, 03.07.2025, 26.07.2025, 07.08.2025 and 23.08.2025 the case was adjourned for hearing arguments. The applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 1253/2025 challenging the order dated 14.01.2025 by which the applicant has been directed to provide the documents to the respondent for completing formalities of his pension before this Court on 19.09.2025. The said revision is still pending. On 19.09.2025 again the matter was adjourned for 26.09.2025 for arguments. 5. On the next date 26 09.2025 the applicant informed the court regarding pendency of the criminal revision before this Court. The Learned Trial Court recorded that no stay order has been passed and from the perusal of the records it is seen that applicant is not complying with the order dated 14.01.2025 and the present application for not proceeding with the case is filed with motive to delay the case so the application informing the Learned Trial Court and praying for not proceeding was rejected. On again on the next date 16.10.2025, 15.11.2025 the case was adjourned for arguments. On 29.11.2025 the application submitted by the respondent for cancelling the interim maintenance was considered and Learned Trial Court cancelled the order of grant of interim maintenance with effect from 21.02.2025 holding that the 4 applicant is not complying with the order dated 08.01.2025. The Learned Trial Court held that from the reply and the arguments forwarded by the applicant it can be seen that applicant is not willing to comply with the order dated 08.01.2025 and even after the order of the Court the applicant is no cooperating to provide the documents for grant of pension to the respondent. The interim maintenance was cancelled from 21.02.2025. The case was fixed for final arguments. The order dated 29.11.2025 is bad in law and has been passed in excess of jurisdiction. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is submitted that the interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- was being granted by the respondent to the applicant, but therafter, the same was cancelled by the learned Family Court on the ground that the applicant has failed to the comply with the order of Family Court directing the applicant to file some documentary evidence pertaining to the income of the respondent, and on some other date the same was supplied by her but the same was rejected by the Family Court, and tomorrow is the date fixed for final arguments with respect to disposal of the application under Section 125 of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the order of the Family Court, it transpires that the interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- was being 5 granted by the respondent to the applicant, but therafter, the same was cancelled by the learned Family Court on the ground that the applicant has failed to the comply with the order of Family Court directing the applicant to file some documentary evidence pertaining to the income of the respondent, and on some other date the same was supplied by her but the same was rejected by the Family Court, and tomorrow is the date fixed for final arguments with respect to disposal of the application under Section 125 of CrPC. Therefore, this Court finds that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar