1 2025:CGHC:34632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 531 of 2021 Shri Ajay Soni S/o Shri Harilal Soni, Aged About 27 Years R/o Badhaipara, Jhanda Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Ekta Soni D/o Shri Ramchand Gupta, Aged About 23 Years W/o Shri Ajay Soni, R/o Bharat Nagar, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared on behalf of respondent on repeated calls. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.07.2021 passed by First Additional principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. Case No. 2 770/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the the applicant and respondent performed marriage as per hindu rights and customs on 21.04.2025, thereafter they were living together and enjoying the married life. The gist of the application is that after marriage, during the course of conjugal life of the applicant and the respondent, the respondent became pregnant but the applicant harassed the respondent by saying that he did not want a child, due to which the respondent’s pregnancy resulted in miscarriage. The applicant abuses the respondent with vulgar language on every small matter, beats and doubts her by saying that she does not want a child. The applicant's mother, sister and her husband are also included in this; all of them continuously harassed the respondent and demanded dowry and cash. They also used to abuse the respondent by calling her a whore and prostitute. Counselling was done on the complaint regarding the above, but there was no change in the attitude of the applicant. When the respondent became pregnant again, the applicant started harassing her again. When the respondent protested, the applicant beat her again on 03.06.2018. On 05.06.2018, the respondent left her at her parents' house and went away. 3 Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and the learned Family Court vide its order dated 09.07.2021, partly allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife and directed applicant herein to pay Rs.5000/- per month as grant for maintenance. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case material available on record. The learned Family Court has allowed the application of the maintenance amount of the respondent against the applicant and awarded the amount i.e. Rs. 5,000/- which is not justified and reasonable because the respondent who is the married wife of the applicant which is admitted fact of the case but the respondent is residing separately without any sufficient or cogent reason from the house of the applicant whereas the applicant made so many effort to reside with her, even if the respondent is not ready to reside with her husband/applicant. The respondent made so many false allegation against the applicant regarding the cruelty and harassed/ill-treatment against the applicant and his family members whereas the respondent was made cruelty and harassed/ill-treated against the applicant and her family members. The impugned order of the Family Court based upon wrongly 4 presumption and inferences which is bad in law at present situation of the applicant because the applicant has made sufficient effort to bring the respondent his house but the respondent did not do so far. Further, the respondent is able to maintain herself by the earning of the father and she knows about work of sewing due to which the respondent did not deserve to be got the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the applicant because the respondent is also engaged in the other work for earning due to this she is able to maintain herself. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that there is sufficient reason for the respondent to live separately from the applicant and further, it is proved that the applicant is in business of selling vegetables. Thus, the grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month cannot be said to be on a higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil