1 2025:CGHC:41305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 636 of 2024 Ashok Majumdar S/o Late Ravindra Majumdar, Aged About 60 Years R/o Qr. No. 6a, Street No.12, Sector-7, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Note-(Now Retired From The Job) ... Applicant versus Samita Majumdar W/o Ashok Majumdar, Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 2b, Street No. 36, Sector-1, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Bhatti, Presently R/o House No. 531, B-Block, Building No. 8, Taalpuri, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.04.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 534/2019, 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 applicant and the respondent got married on RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 29.06.18 at Radhika Nagar, Kalibadi, Bhilai and it was second marriage of the applicant with the respondent as her first husband had died. It was submitted by the respondent in the application that after the marriage the applicant used to consume liquor and beat her and the daughters, the facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent got married on 29.06.2018 at Radhika Nagar, Kalibadi, Bhilai and it was second marriage of the applicant with the respondent as her first husband had died. After the marriage the applicant use to consume liquor and beat her and the daughters of the applicant and Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of applicant use to curse her. On 07.06.2018 she was beaten by the applicant and again on 17.02.2019 she was cursed and assaulted and she was thrown out from the matrimonial house. She made complaint before Mahila Thana, Sector-6, Bhilai but the applicant did not took interest in the counseling and the Police closed the case on 31.03.2019. She made a complaint to S.P. Durg on 06.04.19 and also sent a legal notice on 08.04.19. The respondent submitted that the applicant is working as medical technician at Bhilai Steel Plant and the non-applicant has no source of income and prayed for Rs.30,000/-per month as maintenance from the applicant. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 3 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 applicant is a retired employee and has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation in January, 2024, and has to take care of both his daughters and old ailing mother who also resides with him. 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, 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar