1 2025:CGHC:36112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 651 of 2023 Gajendra Sen S/o Laxman Aged About 32 Years Pro.-Laxman Saloon Rajim, Bus Stand, Police Station-Rajim, Goverdhan Para, Rajim, Tahsil And, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Jyoti Sen W/o Gajendra Sen Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No.6 Near Thethwar Bhawan, Mahasamund, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Purnima S/o Gajendra Sen Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Jyoti Sen W/o Gajendra Sen, R/o Ward No.6 Near Thethwar Bhawan, Mahasamund, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Minor Ishan Sen S/o Gajendra Sen Aged About 5 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Jyoti Sen W/o Gajendra Sen, R/o Ward No.6 Near Thethwar Bhawan, Mahasamund, Police Station-City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 39/2020, 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. 2,000/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the respondent No.1, and Rs. 700/- (each) to the respondents No. 2 and 3. 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 17.02.2012 between the parties according to Social Rites and out of their wedlock, respondents No.2 and 3 had born, however, after the marriage the respondent No.1 was subjected with cruelty by the applicant and thereafter she was ousted by the applicant from his house, further he used to take her back by settlement of the dispute, on 07.05.2020 the applicant badly assaulted the respondent No.1 and ousted her from the house, due to which she is living at her parental house. The respondent No.1 was unable to maintain herself and her children therefore the respondents have filed application seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month 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. Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, and Rs. 700/- (each) to the respondents No. 2 and 3. 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 3 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. 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 06.05.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 39/2020, 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. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, and Rs. 700/- (each) to the respondents No. 2 and 3, 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 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. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Rajshekhar