1 2025:CGHC:33877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 823 of 2017 Sunil Kenwat S/o Shiv Pal Kenwat, Aged About 33 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o 64/1, Galhata Tahsil Jaitpur, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. At Present Jahanti Chowk Gudyari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Mamta Kenwat W/o Sunil Kumar Kenwat, Aged About 32 Years Caste Kenwat, R/o Ward No. 1, Vivekanand, Colony, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Utkarsh Kenwat S/o Sunil Kumar Kenwat, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Mamta Kenwat W/o Sunil Kumar Kenwat, R/o Ward No. 1, Vivekanand, Colony, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 03.08.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 37/2016, 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 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month each to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents who are the wife and son of the applicant preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance. It was pleaded in the application inter-alia that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 11.07.2008, after the marriage, the applicant and respondent No.1 resided at Bhopal, Raipur, Bilaspur. Out of their wedlock, a boy child took birth. It was alleged that the applicant harassed the respondent No.1, on which she left the house of husband on April 2013. Subsequently, the applicant managed to take decree of divorce in his favour, which was ex-parte decree. Further that, the applicant has married to another lady, it was pleaded that the applicant earns Rs. 20,000/- by his private job and also acquires 7 acres of land. 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. 3,000/- per month to each of 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 without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant 3 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. 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