1 2025:CGHC:36514 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 905 of 2025 Krishna Dewangan S/o Shri Ramcharan Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Bazar Para Gidam, District- Dantewada, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rajni Dewangan W/o Shri Krishna Dewangan Aged About 36 Years R/o Ambedkar Ward Sargipal Para Teh And District- Kondagaon, C.G. 2 - Niharika Dewangan D/o Krishna Dewangan Aged About 11 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Rajani Dewangan, R/o Ambedkar Ward Sargipal Para Teh And District- Kondagaon, C.G. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) in MJC No. 20/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, 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. 10,000/- per month to the respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 18.04.2012 in Kondagaon as per Hindu Rites. They lived together as husband and wife and have a daughter namely Niharika Dewangan (respondent No.2) from the said wedlock. The respondent left the house of the applicant on 17.03.2018 without any valid reason despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to bring her back and settle the marital dispute amicably. The applicant made multiple visits to the respondent’s parental home including during social events and offered reconciliation all of which were ignored or rejected by the respondent. The respondent refused to the matrimonial home even after family mediation and has been living separately without sufficient justification since 2018. 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. 10,000/- per month to the respondents. 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/wife voluntarily left the marital home in 2018 without any valid and sufficient reason and refused multiple reconciliation attempts. The applicant’s petitioner under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act (Restitution of 3 conjugal rights) clearly states efforts of reconciliation which were declined by the respondent No.1, further the respondent No.1 is living with her parental family, which is financially stable and supporting her for several years now. 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