1 2025:CGHC:34624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 999 of 2022 Anup Gupta @ Pramod S/o Shri Brijmohan Gupta Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Durga Mandir, Rajnagar, Bijuri, District- Anuppur (M.P.), Address- Near Shankerpur Railway Station, Hakim Kirana Shop, Police Station Madwas, District- Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Ruby Gupta W/o Anup Gupta @ Pramod Aged About 37 Years R/o Gondpara, Near Sai Mandir, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 471/2021, 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 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Rs. 10,000/- per month each to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that on 03.09.2021 the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, before the learned Family Court to get the monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant stating inter-alia that marriage was solemnized between the applicant and non-applicant on 28/11/2013 according to Hindu customs in Bilaspur. The respondent further allegedly stated in her maintenance application that after marriage, she started living with her husband in the in-laws' house at Bijuri, District Anumpur (M.P.), but he started demanding dowry amount and after about 6 months of marriage, he brought her to Bilaspur and every day he started demanding money by pretending something or the other, he even pressurized to take partition from the property of her father and started harassing her physically and mentally by abusing and beating her and in the name of dowry, she was harassed by taunting her to be barren and due to being thrown out of the house by her husband, she is residing at her maternal home. The respondent has further stated in her application that this present applicant has a shop in his hometown, from which monthly income is 50 to 60 thousand rupees. There is agricultural land from which annual income of this applicant is up to Rs. 3 lakhs. This applicant's other houses are given on rent. Whereas the she is not able to maintain herself. 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 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. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court 3 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 applicant has no knowledge about law and proceedings of the Family Court, procedure of appointment of counsel in the Family Court and further due to financial problem, illness of his mother, neither he could appear nor took help of amicus curiae in the case after the first appearance on 03.09.2021 and therefore could not defend his case properly and hence the learned Principal Judge has ex-parte passed the impugned order, which is on the face of it unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 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. 4 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