1 2025:CGHC:30956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 722 of 2019 Jasmeet Singh Makkad S/o Shri Surendra Singh Makkad Aged About 30 Years R/o Infront Of Uttam Cycle Sotre, Station Road, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rajji Kaur @ Rajni W/o Shri Jasmeet Singh Makkad Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Pithora, Police Station And Tehsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Udam Singh Makkad S/o Shri Jasmeet Singh Makkad Aged About 5 Years Minor And Is Represented By His Natural Guardian (Mother) Smt. Rajji Kaur @ Rajni (Respondent No. 1 Herein). R/o Ward No. 14, Pithora, Police Station And Tehsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Harishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Harishabh Deo Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund, 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, whereas, it is submitted that the marriage of the applicant with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 10.12.2011 and thereafter the parties were living together. There was a cordial and harmony relationship between the applicant and the respondent No.1, which got dried immediately after one month of the date of marriage, as the respondent No.1 left the house of the applicant on 03.07.2018 without any sufficient reason. Thereafter, the applicant has also made a written complaint to Police Station Mahasamund. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance against the applicant herein. 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 partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents. 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 3 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. Therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant as per the provisions of Section 125(4) of CrPC. It is further submitted that the respondents have also filed an application for enhancement of maintenance before this Court, and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CRR No. 968/2019. 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 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund, 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the 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 further the fact that the respondents have also filed an application for enhancement of maintenance before this Court, and the 4 same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CRR No. 968/2019, 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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