1 2025:CGHC:27695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 813 of 2019 Chhaganlal Pradhan S/o Shri Laxman Pradhan Aged About 37 Years By Caste Halba, R/o Village Madagaon, Post Kotpar, Thana And Tahsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ramdaee Pradhan W/o Chhaganlal Pradhan Aged About 28 Years By Caste - Halba, R/o Village Hatkarra, Thana Korar, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Satima Pradhan D/o Chhaganlal Pradhan Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Mother, Smt. Ramdaee Pradhan, Aged About 28 Years, W/o Chhaganlal Pradhan, By Caste Halba, By Caste - Halba, R/o Village Hatkarra, Thana Korar, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Bhavika, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Bhavika, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 88/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – Uttar Baster Kanker, 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. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., that she married with applicant in the year 2004 and after 3-4 month of marriage, the applicant used to harass and there was no talk with the applicant, and out of there wedlock the respondent No. 2 was born and there was village meeting in that the applicant denied maintenance to respondent, hence the application for maintenance was filed. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contentions in the application filed by the respondents and specifically stated that the respondent No. 1 is a healthy woman and she has a other source of income to maintain herself and her children. The learned Family Court after 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. 2,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. The impugned order 3 passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts and material available on record, 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 respondents without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, as per provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order and decree 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, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 9. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar