1 2025:CGHC:36114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 606 of 2023 Deepak Dewangan S/o. Shri Narayan Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years Caste Kosta, Occupation Egg Dealer, R/o. Beladula, Bhole Nagar Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Santoshi Dewangan @ Sonam W/o. Deepak Dewangan Aged About 30 Years Caste Kosta, Occupation Dependent, R/o. Beladula, Bhole Nagar Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o. Malidipa Boirdadar Raigarh Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in MJC No. F-64/2021, 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 the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- for case costs. As per the averment of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 09.12.2020 at Malidipa Raigarh accordance to Hindu Rights and Rituals. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent has given some House hold things and two Lac Rupees as gift as per their capacity. After one week of marriage the family members of her husband demanded for fifty thousand rupees and one motor cycle as she bring less dowry when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled they used to taunt her and threatened to leave her and her husband used to fight after drinking. On 05.02.2021 the applicant beat up her and threw her out of the house. The family member of the respondent were trying to urge him many times but the applicant has denied to keep her till then the demand of dowry is not being fulfilled. The applicant is wholesale dealer of Egg and he has two shops, in which one shop is situated at inside of Hatari near Sanjay Market and another is in Boirdadar Road in front of Jalsa Marriage Garden in which he earns two Lac rupees per month and apart from this the applicant earn from house rent also 10-10,000 rupees thus the applicant earns two Lac twenty thousand rupees per month. Since 05.02.2021 the applicant is not taking care of her and even not giving any maintenance amount. The applicant also denied in Family counseling center to keep her with him. There is no source of income of the respondent therefore the respondent moved this application claiming grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- for case costs. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after 3 recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. 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 wifehas made compliant and lodged the FIR against the familty members of the applicant to harass them and in meeting conducted by the respondent and the allegation made by the wife, got the wrong facts. 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. 4 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar