1 2025:CGHC:29540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 759 of 2018 Ashok Bagga S/o Late Bodhraj Bagga, Aged About 40 Years R/o Infront Of Gurudwara, Ward No. 3, Bilha, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Payal @ Pappi W/o Ashok Bagga, Aged About 29 Years D/o Kishan Lal Datta @ Krishna Singh Datta, R/o Village Bheejabhat, Police Station, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Mannat Bagga, D/o Ashok Bagga, Aged About 5 Years Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Payal @ Pappi, D/o Kishan Lal Datta @ Krishna Singh Datta, R/o Village Bheejabhat, Police Station, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 26.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in CRA No. 07/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, partly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, filed by the respondents, 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 No.1. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant has filed the instant Criminal Revision against the order passed by learned Additional Session Judge, whereby the application for maintenance has been partly allowed. The respondent moved an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for grant of maintenance. The said application was filed on 30.11.2012 inter alia on the allegations that the respondent No.1 got married with the applicant according to Hindu Ritual on 01.05.2006 and out of the said wedlock on 23.04.2009 the respondent No.2 was born out. The applicant after one year along with his other family members used to torture her. It was alleged that the applicant used to harass for demand of dowry. It was alleged that on 02.06.2009 the husband and family members beaten her and thrown her out of matrimonial house along with her children and since then she is residing with her parents. It was also alleged that she is not able to maintain herself and the applicant/husband is able to maintain his wife and children. It was alleged that the applicant is drawing the salary of Rs. 20 to 25 lacks per year and having different types of 3 works, and is having a shop also, accordingly the application was filed. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Session Court vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018 has allowed the application preferred by the respondents for grant of maintenance and the applicant herein has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No.1. The learned Session Court while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in its correct prospective, which has resulted the erroneous findings and consequent orders. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Session Court while passing the impugned order has not recorded the specific findings in respect of the monthly income of the husband, even there is no evidence on record to show that the husband is earning that much of amount as alleged in the application. 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 4 the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned trial 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. 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