1 2025:CGHC:29539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 968 of 2017 Ashok Bagga S/o Late Bodh Raj Bagga, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Infront Of Gurudwara Ward No. 3 Bilha Post And Police Station Bilha , Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Payal @ Pappy S/o Ashok Bagga, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Bijabhata, Police Station And Thasil Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Mannat Bagga D/o Ashok Bagga Aged About 5 Years (Applicant No. 2 Is Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Payal @ Pappy, W/o Ashok Bagga, Abged About 29 Years). R/o Village Bijabhata, Police Station And Thasil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 757/2013, whereby the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, partly 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. 6,000/- per month to the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. The application was filed inter-alia on the allegations that respondent No.1 got married with applicant herein namely Ashok Bagga on 01.05.2006, the marriage was solemnized at Bemetara and out of the said wedlock on 23.04.2009 the respondent No. 2 was born out. It was also alleged that about one year after the marriage everything was fine. After one year husband and other family members used to torture her for bringing dowries. On 02.06.2009 the husband and family members beated her and thrown her out of matrimonial house alongwith her children and since then she is residing with her parents. Applicant herein is not in a possession to maintaining her as well as her children. It was alleged in the application that applicant herein is earning Rs. 20 to 25 lacks per year and having the different types of works, and is having a shop also, therefore, the application was filed for grant of maintenance. 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar