1 2025:CGHC:36113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 629 of 2023 Rajesh Sharma S/o Late Chandanlal Aged About 44 Years R/o Rama Green City Phase-2, Baima Nagoi Road, Near Pond, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Street No. 3, Naya Sarkanda, Bengali Para, Police Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Shivani Sharma D/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 8 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Preeti Sharma, R/o Street No. 3, Naya Sarkanda, Bengali Para, Police Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Shubhangi Sharma D/o Rajesh Sharma Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Preeti Sharma, R/o Street No. 3, Naya Sarkanda, Bengali Para, Police Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 1047/2018, whereby the learned Family RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month (each) to the respondents No. 2 and 3. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging that the marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2007 between the parties according to social Rites and Rituals and out of their wedlock respondents No.2 and 3 have been born, after the marriage the applicant used to subject her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, thereafter, she was ousted by the applicant from his house, therefore, she is living separately from the applicant. The respondent was unable to maintain herself and her children, hence, the respondents had filed application seeking maintenance 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 partly allowed the application of the respondents by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month (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 3 order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that in a proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur has already awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the respondents No.2 and 3. 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 the applicant, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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