1 2025:CGHC:40568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 291 of 2024 Omkar Verma S/o Dhansingh Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chourenga, Post Office And Police Station Simga, Sahu Para, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Neha Verma W/o Omkar Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chourenga, Post Office And Police Station Simga, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Urvi Verma D/o Omkar Verma Aged About 2 Years Thorugh Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Neha Verma, R/o Village Chourenga, Post Office And Police Station Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the private respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhathapara (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 217/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:22 +0530 2 the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC stating that her marriage was solemnized along with applicant/husband in the month of February 2020 as per the caste custom prevalent in between the parties. Soon after the marriage, the applicant ill-treated the respondent No.1/wife and thereafter, when she blessed with one daughter, the family members of applicant used to assault her and ill-treated her. It is also mentioned in the application that the applicant and his family member demanded the dowry and on 24-07- 2022, she reported the matter to the Police and it is also pleaded that the applicant is having a tractor and he used to earn of Rs.20,000/- per month and also having agricultural field so demanded sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as a maintenance amount for her and her daughter. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent 3 is voluntarily residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti