1 2025:CGHC:41306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 630 of 2024 Santosh Manikpuri S/o Jagtaran Manikpuri Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Bhopsara, Thana- Chouki Maro, Thana- Nandghat, Thashil- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara ( C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Saraswati Manikpuri S/o Santosh Manikpuri Aged About 36 Years R/o Nandi Chowk, Mathpara, Urkura, Thana- Khamtari, Raipur, (C.G.). 2 - Ku. Payal, D/o- Santosh Manikpuri Aged About 9 Years Natural Guardian Mather Smt. Saraswati Manikpur W/o Santosh Mankipur. R/o Nandi Chowk, Mathpara, Urkura, Thana- Khamtari, Raipur, (C.G.). ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 576/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly 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 total Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Sectino 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant, pleading inter-alia that their marriage was solemnized 17 years ago according to custom and rituals and right in. After the marriage the applicant started torturing the respondent No.1 for the reasons of dowry, therefore, she was returned to her parental house with her parents without knowledge of the applicant and living separately at her parental house. 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 total Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents. 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 is voluntarily residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. 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 3 supports the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 576/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly 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 total 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 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. 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar