1 2025:CGHC:31285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 724 of 2021 Bhuwan Lal Jaiswal S/o Mahaveer Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years At Present Resident Of Village Baigin Dokri, Police Station And Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Permanent Resident Of Village Chigripali, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sulochana Jaiswal W/o Bhuwan Lal Jaiswal Aged About 23 Years R/o 2 Number Dafai (Surakachhar) Tahsil Katghora, District – Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 93/2019, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 19.06.2018 and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house at Village Chigripali (Sarangarh), where after living 1 month, the respondent along with her other matrimonial family members went to live at Gharghoda, where the respondent fell sick and her mother-in-law sent her in her parental house. While the respondent was living in her parental house, the applicant or other matrimonial family did not come in the parental house of respondent for taking her back in the matrimonial house. After 4 months, the mother-in-law of respondent came to the parental house and told that after giving Rs. 50,000/- she will take the respondent in her house, but due to non-fulfillment of demand, the mother-in-law did not take her in her house and left respondent in her parental house. Thereafter the brother and other parental family members of respondent taken her in her matrimonial house, but the applicant and other in-laws family members started to give cruel and ill-treatment for non-fulfillment of demand of money and ultimately she ousted from her matrimonial house, therefore she is living in her parental house. It was further specifically stated by the respondent that the applicant is doing labour work and getting salary of Rs. 20,000/-. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. 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 respondent and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record and only on the basis of arbitrary 3 manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has never ousted the non-applicant, in fact, the respondent herself left her matrimonial house and living in her parental house separately from the applicant without any sufficient reasons. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set- aside. 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar