1 2025:CGHC:28602 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 791 of 2019 Suryapratap S/o Gulab Singh Aged About 35 Years Caste- Khairwar, Occupation- Rajmistry, R/o Village Puta, P.S.- Patna- Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Geeta W/o Suryapratap Khairwar Aged About 30 Years Occupation- House- Wife, R/o Village Khatoli Para, P.S.- Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Sneha D/o Suryapratap Khairwar Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Geeta, W/o Suryaparatap Khairwar, R/o Village- Khatoli Para, P.S.- Charcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 64/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- per month stating that the respondent No.1 and applicant got married on 28.04.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage the respondent No.1 subjected to cruelty by applicant and his family members and they always demand for unlawful property and valuable security from respondent, further she stated that they both were lived happily for seven years and alleged that the applicant made second marriage with another one and after that she had been subjected to cruelty, on 23.06.2018 she had been tortured and beaten by applicant and forced to left the matrimonial house, due to harassment and physical abuse she returned back to her uncle house and she is unable to maintain herself and depend upon her uncle so she requested in the application under Section 125 of CrPC to be granted maintenance Rs.11,000/- from the applicant herein and it also stated that the applicant is working as Rajmistry and also having agriculture land from that his income is Rs. 50,000/- per month. 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. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to 3 the respondent No.2. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts and material available on record, 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 No.1 without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him and she is also a working woman and able to maintain herself. Therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant. 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, and considering the conditions of the respondents, 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar