1 2026:CGHC:2834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 385 of 2023 Garv Sahu (Ajay) S/o Shri Lakhan Sahu Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Birsa Nagar, Zone-3, House No. 88, Pradhan Colony, Near Vijya Garden, Birsa Nagar, Jamshedpur (Jharkhand), P I N - 831009. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Prerna Sahu W/o Garv Sahu (Ajay) Aged About 23 Years Resident Of C/o. Father Himanchal Sahu, Quarter No. 3, C Sadak No.04, Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.). ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : None. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 /01/2026 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the applicant to press this revision on repeated calls. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the Non-applicant, is present. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.756/2022, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 5000/- per month to non- KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant/wife as interim maintenance in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the non- applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, claiming an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month, that it is an undisputed fact that the applicant is the husband and the non-applicant is the wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 31.01.2019 according to Hindu customs at Sindhu Bhawan, Sector-04, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), that as per the averments made by the non-applicant in her application, she came to her matrimonial home on 01.02.2019, and on 03.02.2019 her parental family members visited Jamshedpur as per customs and returned on the same day, and thereafter both the parties lived together as husband and wife, that the non-applicant alleged that after the marriage, the applicant and his family members started abusing, harassing, and beating her on account of dowry, alleging that insufÏcient dowry was given and a car was not provided and that she informed her father about the same through phone calls, pursuant to which her father deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- in her bank account on 06.02.2019, which was subsequently transferred by the non-applicant into the applicant’s bank account on 07.02.2019, yet the alleged harassment and ill-treatment continued. 3 4. The applicant/husband filed his reply to the said application and specifically denied all the allegations and adverse submissions made by the non-applicant/wife. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure A-1), directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the non-applicant. Being aggrieved by which the present revision has been filed seeking quashment of the said order (Annexure P-1). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the non-applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has duly considered the pleadings and material placed on record and passed a well-reasoned order granting interim maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month to non-applicant, holding the same to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the non- applicant is entitled to receive interim maintenance as aforementioned until final disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 4 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the non-applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal