1 2025:CGHC:34654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 916 of 2022 Vikas Goswami S/o Kamal Goswami Aged About 35 Years R/o Banspara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sweety Goswami W/o Vikas Goswami Aged About 22 Years R/o Ramsagarpara, Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 79/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that she is RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 legally wedded wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 09.12.2018 and after 2-3 months of marriage, the applicant and other in- law family members subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and in the month of May, 2019, the applicant has ousted the respondent, due to which, she is living separately. The applicant is working as finance agent in Tractor Showroom and getting Rs. 40,000/- per month, in spite of that he is not giving single penny to the non- applicant towards her 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 partly allowed the application of the respondent and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 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 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. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar