i'i^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 229 of 2006 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT <!. Hans Kumar Jangde S/o Shri Dile Ram Jangde, aged about 28 years, R/o Q.No. 14/A, Street No.1 Sector 4, Bhilai, District Durg Versus Smt. Rajkumari Jangde W/o ,/Hansu Ram @ Hans Ram 'Jangde, aged about 25 years, R/o Through Bhaiya Lal Tandon Village & Post Dagori, P.S. Hirri, DistrictBiic-spur(C.G.) Application u/s 19^(4) of the ?:aip'lv Court Act Appearance : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (19.08.2011) SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. (1) Heard. (2) The applicant has filed this revision challenging the order dated 13.2.2006 passed in MJC No. 501/2005 by the Family Court, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the Family Court has granted Rs.500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent. (3) The respondent filed an applicatipn u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of ^ monthly maintenance to her. The said app!icationwas filed on ths ground of cruelty. The applicant contended before the Family Court that after the marriage on 9.4.2000, in fact, the respondsnt has treated him with cruelty Criminal Reyision No. 229 of 2006 as she never treated him as her husband. In fact, the respondent married to him on account of pressure of her parents. \ (4) The relationship of husband and wife was not denied. The learned Family Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the income pleaded by the parties held that in the above facts and circumstances, the respondent was entitled to get interim maintenance of Rs.500/- per montB'; The respondent, thus, was awarded interim maintenance of Rs.500/- peT month. (5) It has not been disputed before me that the respondent was legally wedded wife of the applicant and she was residing separately on account of alleged cruelty committed by the applicant against her. In light of the above facts and circumstances, 1 am of the view that the learned Family Court has rightly awarded Rs.500/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and there is no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by the Family Court. (6) The revision has no merits. The same is liable to be dismissed, and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge fStti