1 2025:CGHC:30952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 805 of 2019 D. Harikrishna S/o Shri D. Ramaiyya, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ahead Shiv Mandir, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. D. Savita W/o Shri D. Harikrishna Aged About 23 Years R/o Through Father Shri B. Chandraiya, Mali No. 6, Vijay Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. D. Ayushi Aged About 3 Years 6 Month, D/o Shri D.Hari Krishna, R/o Through Father Shri B. Chandraiya, Mali No. 6, Vijay Nagar, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amitesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amitesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 11.03.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 393/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, 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. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 were solemnized marriage on 25.02.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom and due to their wedlock, applicant No.2 born on 23.01.2013. after born of daughter, the applicant has demanded the money of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent No.1 due to take care of his daughter, but parents of the respondent No.1 have refused the said, and due to this, the applicant has committed marpeet with the respondent No.1 and in this regard, the respondent No.1 has made complaint to her father-in- law, and mother-in-law against the applicant, but they have supported to applicant and ill behavior of the applicant never change, and on the raksha festival, the applicant has left to the respondent No.1 at her parental house, and thereafter, there is tried compromise between the to applicant and respondent No.1, but counseling cannot be done, and present respondents are residing with her parents at parental house and the applicant is owner of auto and he earns Rs. 25-30,000/- per month and hence the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant before the learned Family Court. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after 3 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. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2. 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 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 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 11.03.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 393/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, 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. 1,500/- 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 4 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, 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