1 2025:CGHC:38087 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 673 of 2025 Nandkumar S/o Suresh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village-Banja, P.S-Surajpur (C.G.) District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sumitra W/o Nandkumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village-Temri, P.S.-Patna, District-Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08 .2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.494/2019, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:36:23 +0530 2 Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), seeking maintenance. The respondent submitted that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 12/06/2017 as per Hindu customs and rituals. After the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by her in-laws. The applicant and his family demanded ₹2,00,000 from her father. Although her father had already given a motorcycle, cooler, cupboard, etc, the applicant insisted on more dowry, saying, “Bring ₹2 Lakhs. He then assaulted her and threw her out of the house. The applicant has not paid her any maintenance, and she is unable to maintain herself. The respondent claims the applicant owns 10 acres of agricultural land and earns ₹50,000 per month. He also drives a tractor. Therefore, she claimed ₹25,000 per month as maintenance. In response, the applicant denied all allegations. He claimed that he never demanded dowry, nor did he assault or threaten the non-applicant. He alleged that the non-applicant herself did not want to live with him, saying she had married against her will due to his lack of education. Despite several attempts by him and his father to reconcile, she refused to return. He further claimed that he owns no agricultural land, that the respondent earns ₹10,000 per month through tailoring, and that he is often ill and unable to work. He argued that the non-applicant left him without sufficient reason. 3. The respondent had previously filed an execution petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Following a compromise, she resumed cohabitation with the applicant for approximately two years. However, the respondent again left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 144(3) of B.N.S.S. for non-compliance with the order dated 06/07/2021. On 08/05/2025, the learned Family Court, Surajpur, directed the applicant to deposit the maintenance amount by the next hearing date, fixed for 3 10/06/2025. The impugned ex parte order dated 06/07/2021 allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay ₹2,000 per month from the date of application. Hence, this revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse based on no reliable evidence. The judgment passed by the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the respondent, she went her parental house, she has not returned back. She is residing in her parental house without any sufficient cause and she has filed an application for grant of maintenance and learned Family Court has allowed that application without any sufficient reasons, therefore, liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant an ex-parte impugned order has been passed. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court please to allow this revision petition and remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration give proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Then, decide the matter on merit accordance with law. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, and is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti