1 2025:CGHC:39157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 968 of 2025 Rudra Dev Verma S/o Late Munna Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Thelkabandha, P.S. And Tehsil- Bhamdha Distt- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Shailendri Verma W/o Rudra Dev Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o - Ganpat Chowk, Ring Road No. 02 Hirapur, Distt- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 424/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance, alleging that the applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 happens to be the husband of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage the applicant and the respondent started residing at the place of applicant, unfortunately, after the 2nd day of marriage the in-laws of the respondent started demanding and harassing her for dowry, she also got abused and assaulted and had been treated as maid of the house, looking the situation of the family the applicant took the respondent at Hirapur, Raipur, and started living separately in a rented house but the mother of the applicant went there also to harass the respondent. The respondent made a written complaint about the behavior of the applicant and her in- laws in Mahila Cell on 30.12.2017 and after counseling the applicant agreed to keep the respondent in well manner however, on 20.04.2020 the applicant again left the her alone in the rented house in Raip0ur and went back to Thelkabandha. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance from the applicant. 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. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. 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 3 evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent is voluntarily residing 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 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