1 2025:CGHC:38868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 859 of 2023 Sanit Verma S/o Shri Munna Verma Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Jiya, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Sarita Verma W/o Shri Sanit Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jiya, P.S., Tahsil And District Bemetara (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village Pandarbhattha, P.O. Kunra, P.S. And Tahsil Dharsiva, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.05.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Cr. Misc. Case No. 129/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, 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. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant and respondent were married in March, 2015. The respondent/wife filed the said application before the family Court and contended that the applicant has been abusing her because she stayed in her matrimonial home for long time due to ill health of her mother and aunt. It has been contended by the respondent/wife that she was being ill treated by the applicant and was not given proper food. Thus she is staying in her brother's Aashram. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent per month. 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 is voluntarily living separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. 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 3 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