ORDER :

1. The applicant/husband has filed the instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 12.4.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC No.225/2019 rejecting the application of the applicant for dismissal of the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC instituted by the respondent/wife.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is perverse and not sustainable in law. The learned Court below failed to appreciate that the principles of res judicata and estopple are applicable in criminal proceedings as well and there is no dearth of authority in this regard including the case of Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Chandana Kapoor reported in (2020) 13 SCC 172. The respondent is residing in Bilaspur and earlier she had filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court at Durg in which she was granted maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month vide order dated 20.12.2005 (Annexure P/2). For alteration of the said amount, she ought to have filed appropriate application before the Family Court, Durg only whereas she filed a fresh application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance from the applicant before the Family Court, Bilaspur, which was not at all maintainable. It is further submitted that no can can be allowed to abuse the process of Court of law and here in the present case, such abuse is writ large. When the law requires that for alternation of amount of maintenance, the application has to be filed before the same Court which granted maintenance, the application filed by the respondent/wife before the Family Court, Bilaspur was liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 18.8.2022 of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sunita and another Vs. Vijay Pal @ Mohd. Sabir and another in Crl.Rev.P.No.161/2018.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the applicant has obtained ex-parte interim order on 15.6.2022 from this Court without disclosing the true and correct facts and misrepresenting the respondent whereas address of the respondent is same and the parties are proceeding with the same address in different courts. The said interim order has already expired on 15.12.2022 in light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299, but the respondent is still facing hardship due to non-payment of maintenance amount. The impugned order passed by the Family Court is just and proper The instant revision has been filed against an interlocutory order which is itself not maintainable before this Court, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Shailendra Nath Vs. Archana Nath reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1621 and the order dated 7.5.2014 of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.348/2012 in the matter of Smt. Rani Mahalka Nisha Khan Vs. Abdul Javed Khan.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Learned trial Court observed in the impugned order dated 12.4.2022 as under:

^^vukosnd us izLrqr nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa tokc nkok esa dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gSa vkSj u gha lk{; ds nkSjku mDr laca/k esa dksbZ izfrijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA tcfd vukosnd dks lk{; gsrq vafre volj iznku fd;k x;k gSA mlds }kjk izdj.k yac;keku j[kus dh fu;r ls ;g vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vukosnd pkgs rks mDr dFkuks dks ,oa nLrkostksa dks vius lk{; ds ek/;e ls fof/k vuqdwy lk{; ls izekf.kr dj ldrk gS] ftldk xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fujkdj.k gksxkA vr% vukosnd }kjk izLrqr vkosnu fujLr fd;k tkos ,oa mlds lk{; dk volj Hkh lekIr fd;k tkosA

izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

vkosfndk ds }kjk ;g izdj.k fnukad 22-02-2019 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vukosnd dh mifLFkfr fnukad 08-05-2019 dks gksa