1 2025:CGHC:30950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 866 of 2019 Manish Kurre S/o Sanat Kurre Aged About 23 Years Occupation Cultivator And Clerk In Canal Department, R/o Village Devgadiya, Post And Police Station Kunda, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Giteshwari Kurre W/o Mainsh Kurre Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Madanpur, Post Tahsil And Police Station Nawagaon, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kavya D/o Manish Kurre Aged About 2 Months, Minor Represented Through Mother Non - Applicant No. 1, At Present R/o Village Madanpur, Post Tahsil And Police Station Nawagaon, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. K.K. Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 243/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 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. 700/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants herein filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.) for grant of maintenance, that after marriage, the non-applicant No. 1 went to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligation, but she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant on account of demand of dowry, due to which, she scared about her life in the matrimonial family member and she left the matrimonial house. The applicant has not made any effort to take back the non-applicants and in spite of having sufficient income, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of non-applicants, therefore, they filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. 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. 700/- 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 3 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 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 243/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, 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. 700/- 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 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. 4 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 as well as original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar