1 2025:CGHC:30957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 680 of 2019 Girdhari Sonkar S/o Shri Mohan Sonkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Bhawani Nagar, Simga, Tahsil And Police Station Simga, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Bharti Sonkar W/o Shri Girdhari Sonkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Simga, Presently Residing At Ghathora, Police Station And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The Instant Petition filed by the petitioner is being aggrieved with the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Cr. Revision No. 31/2018, arising out of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Mungeli, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 71/2016, whereby the learned revisional Court, partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the respondent as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. It was submitted by respondent that, she is the wife of applicant. Their marriage was solemnized about on 25.06.2015 as per the rituals and customs prevailing in their caste. It was further contended that for a period of 1 year they lived happily but on or about 4 months prior to the application the applicant started harassing her on the ground that she has not bring dowry at the time of marriage and due to that reason he started quarrel every time on small issues, due to said cruelty she was suffering physically and mentally and looking to her condition the parents of the respondent brought her to parental home on 05.06.2016. After getting recovery when she went to her matrimonial home, the applicant denied her to enter in the house premises on the ground of dowry. As the respondent was thrown out of the house she is living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself. The applicant is an able bodied man having agricultural land and has vegetable shop and is earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month from shop and from farming earning a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- per year. The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant filed his reply and denied the averments made by respondent. The learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence laid by the parties and after appreciating the same partly allowed the application filed by respondent and granted a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance to respondent. Being Aggrieved of the aforesaid order the respondent preferred a revision before the revisional Court. 3 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the revision filed by the respondent. The learned revisional Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned revisional Court partly allowed the revision of the respondent and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned revisional 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 revisional Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence 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, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant as per the provisions of Section 125(4) of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. 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 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Cr. Revision No. 31/2018, arising out of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Mungeli, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 71/2016, whereby the learned revisional Court, partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the 4 same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned revisional Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the 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