1 2025:CGHC:35719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 526 of 2023 Rahul Mahilange S/o Dhansingh Mahilange Aged About 22 Years Occupation- Welding Mechanic, R/o Village Katalbod, Post- Kunra, Tahsil- Katalbod, Post- Kunra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District-Bemetara At Present, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Police Station- Urla, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sapna Mahilange W/o Rahul Mahilange Aged About 21 Years Caste- Satnami, Occupation-Nil, R/o Village Katalbod, Post- Kunra, Tahsil-Nawagarh, District- Bemetara At Present, R/o Village Murkuta, Post-Kunra, Tahsil-Nawagarh, Up- Tahsil-Nandghat, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harish Chelkar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 468/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly 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 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:07:52 +0530 2 respondent/wife. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that the applicant and respondent were studying in same school, therefore they were having love affair. The applicant has developed physical relationship with the respondent, due to which, she became pregnant, but the applicant refused to marry with her, due to which, the respondent made police complaint and thereafter, the applicant has performed marriage with the respondent on 16.01.2020. After marriage, the respondent went to the house of applicant, but the applicant and his parents subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and they ousted her from the in- laws house and refused to keep her. The respondent is living in her parental house and she has no source of income, therefore she filed application for grant of maintenance. 3. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply to the application, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that there is no lawful marriage performed between the applicant and respondent and the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The respondent is living in her parental family on her own, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance amount from the applicant and the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by her deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 21.03.2023, the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent towards her maintenance from the date of application i.e. from 28.12.2022. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence 3 available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C No. 468/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Bemetara, partly 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/wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 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, and considering the conditions of the respondent, 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 4 is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti