1 2025:CGHC:34625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 983 of 2022 Fagnuram Undre S/o Anjori Ram Undre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Muragota, P.S. And Post Kacche, Tehsil Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Tapeshwari W/o Fagnuram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sivni, P.S. And Post Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Laxmi D/o Fagnuram Aged About 2 Years Minor Is Being Represented Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Tapeshwari W/o Fagnuram, Aged About 29 Years. R/o Village Sivni, P.S. And Post Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Case No. 90/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, partly 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 each to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month to both the respondents herein. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent No.1 took place on 07.05.2014 Village Sivni, P.S. and Post Balod, District Balod (C.G.) according to the rituals and customs of the society and one child i.e. the respondent No.2 was born out of the said wedlock. It has been alleged that after the period of 1-1.5 years the applicant started mentally torturing the respondent No.1 and also started to physically abuse her. The applicant and his family members used to force her to work along with them in the business of serving liquor which her family used to carry on for their livelihood. On 18.09.2015 the applicant and his family members have beaten the respondent No.1 when she was carrying the pregnancy of about 7 months and thereafter she came back her paternal home. 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 respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month each to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 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 3 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. 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