1 2026:CGHC:7045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 130 of 2026 Vikas Soni S/o- Late Vijay Kumar Soni Aged About 38 Years R/o- Santoshi Chowk, New Colony, Kushalpur, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Priya Agrawal Soni W/o Vikas Soni Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Gopidas Mandir, Baniya Para, Police Station- Purani Basti Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has :led this criminal revision against the order dated 22.11.2025 passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.1413/2023, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs. 8000/- per month to the non- applicant as interim maintenance till :nal disposal in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts, as emerging from the record are that after the marriage, the non-applicant came to know that the applicant had concealed his earlier marriage and the fact that two daughters were born from the said marriage. Thereafter, within a few days, the applicant allegedly started harassing the non-applicant to bring dowry from her parental home and upon her refusal, he even assaulted her. It was further pleaded in the application :led under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., that the husband of the non-applicant developed suspicion regarding her character and, thereafter, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing with her mother and due to lack of support and :nancial hardship, she :led an application for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant :led his written statement before the learned Family Court, wherein he denied ever demanding any dowry or gift from the non-applicant after marriage. He stated that the non-applicant had full knowledge of his earlier marriage and the fact that he had two daughters and that she had consented to the marriage with such knowledge. The applicant further submitted that his father died when he was very young and thereafter his mother also passed away. After the death of his :rst wife, his two daughters were growing up without maternal care and he wished to provide them with a mother’s love and support. He also stated that, prior to marriage, he had arranged meetings between the non-applicant and his daughters to develop mutual understanding. It was further stated that the applicant never ill-treated the non-applicant; rather, she allegedly mistreated his two daughters and never accepted 3 them as family members. The applicant also submitted that on 15.09.2022, he lodged a complaint at the local police station stating that the non-applicant was threatening to implicate him and his family in a false case by consuming poison and threatening suicide. Thereafter, on 18.09.2022, the non-applicant allegedly took her valuables and left the matrimonial home without any justi:able reason and started residing separately with her mother. He further pleaded that he is solely responsible for the upbringing of his two daughters, aged about 12 years and 10 years, who are studying at Shivansh International School, Katadih, Raipur (C.G.). He therefore prayed that the maintenance application :led by the wife be dismissed. 5. After appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, vide order dated 22.11.2025, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance in favour of non-applicant and directed the applicant to pay ₹8,000/- per month to non-applicant as interim maintenance till :nal disposal of the case. Hence, the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law, evidence on record, and settled legal principles, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the conduct of non-applicant has been inhuman, aggressive, and quarrelsome since the inception of the marriage, which led to serious matrimonial discord. The applicant had even lodged a police complaint on 15.09.2022, much prior to the registration of the FIR, informing the authorities about her 4 threatening behavior, repeated quarrels and suicidal threats given with mala :de intention to falsely implicate him and his family. She also objected to the applicant’s daughter residing with them and insisted on sending her away, reDecting her non-adjusting conduct. It is further submitted that the non-applicant’s earlier marriage, solemnized on 20.04.2016, ended due to her own failure to ful:ll matrimonial obligations and even in prior proceedings she had admitted her problematic behavior. Despite this being her second marriage, she continued similar conduct and lodged false criminal proceedings to harass the applicant, compelling him to seek anticipatory bail, which was granted by this Court in MCRCA No. 221/2024. Complaints were also made to higher police authorities regarding her misuse of legal process. These facts clearly show that she is living separately without suFcient cause and has been misusing legal remedies with mala :de intent. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider these material aspects while passing the impugned order. Hence, the non-applicant, having voluntarily chosen to live separately without any reasonable cause, is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the 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 ₹8000/- per month to non-applicant, holding the 5 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 :nal disposal of the case, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the :nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in:rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the prayer made to quash the impugned order is refused. 11. However, the present revision is disposed of with the direction that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of four months from today, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. OFce is directed to send a certi:ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal