1 2025:CGHC:28603 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 789 of 2019 Vijay Sonkhare S/o Jogeshwar Prasad Sonkhare, Aged About 34 Years R/o Near Bahatarai Stadium, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Arti Sonkhare W/o Vijay Sonkhare Aged About 27 Years Presently R/o Sarvamangla Road, Near Indira Nagar Tower, Ward No. 01, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Praveen Sonkhare, S/o Vijay Sonkhare, Aged About 11 Years Represented Through Mother Smt. Arti Sonkhare , Presently R/o Sarvamangla Road, Near Indira Nagar Tower, Ward No. 01, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 18/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court Korba which has been registered as M.J.C. No.18/2018, stated that respondent No.1 is the married wife and respondent No. 2 is son of the applicant. respondent No.1 is married on 30.04.2005 with applicant according to Hindu law and respondent No. 1 lived with applicant at Bilaspur and respondent No. 2 is the son of applicant. As per the allegation of the respondent No.1 that applicant demanded motorcycle and cash amount from the respondent No.1 and torture her due to failure of demand. respondent No.1 leaved the house of applicant in the year 2008 and resides with her parents at Korba. The respondent No.1 lodged report against the applicant at Police Station registered the case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the applicant and filed charge sheet before the learned J.M.F.C. Bilaspur and applicant was convicted in that case for an imprisonment of one year. Respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and her son respondent No. 2, therefore, respondents filed an application before the learned Family Court Korba under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- 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. 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. 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 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in MJC No. 18/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba, 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, 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. 4 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, 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