1 2025:CGHC:30205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 585 of 2018 Ajit Singh Thakur S/o Taran Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Teka, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Anshuman Thakur S/o Ajit Singh Thakur Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Monika Thakur, R/o Sector 3, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Monika Thakur W/o Ajit Singh Thakur Aged About 29 Years R/o Sector 3, Professor Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 94/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 pay Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage took place between the respondent No.2 and the applicant as per the rituals on 05/05/2014. Thereafter, the couple was blessed with one son i.e. respondent No.1 on 6/2/2015. Thereafter, the applicant husband used to quarrel and assault the respondent No.2 and also harassed her physically and mentally. The applicant demanded a flat in Raipur and for which the wife lodged the report. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. The learned Family Court by order dated 16/3/2018 granted the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 (son) and Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 (wife) in total Rs.7,000/- per month. Hence the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and perverse to the facts on records and the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant is not having sufficient source of income. The respondent herself left the house of the applicant on her own without any rhyme or reason and while granting the maintenance amount, the learned Family Court has not at all appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the inflation rate, the standard of living of the parties and the responsibility of the applicant towards his wife and child. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal