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 RAJSHEKHAR Order on Board SONI

12.01.2026 Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI

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 1^st 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 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 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