1 2025:CGHC:35843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 612 of 2025 Kamlesh Agrawal S/o Sri Pannalal Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Main Market Ward No. 12, Naugaon, Tehsil Naugaon, Distt. Chhatarpur (M.P.) (Non Applicant) ... Applicant versus Smt. Neha Agrawal W/o Sri Kamlesh Agrawal Aged About 31 Years D/o. Late P.C. Agrawal, R/o Civil Line, Manendragarh, Tehsil Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea now Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 236/2023, 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 the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging that the marriage was solemnized on PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:07:52 +0530 2 05.02.2022 between the parties however the marriage was not consummated and due to ill treatment the respondent had to leave the matrimonial house. The respondent is unable to maintain herself therefore she had filed application seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after 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. 5,000/- 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 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. 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 3 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 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 Preeti