1 2025:CGHC:31284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 857 of 2021 Om Prakash Khatri S/o Charan Das Arora Aged About 51 Years R/o Civil Lines, Baitul (M.P.) Professor In Government Arts And Science College Baitul, District Baitul (M.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Manisha Khatri W/o Om Prakash Khatri Aged About 42 Years R/o House No 27/276, In Front Of Juvenile Court, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Present Address-H.No. 2, Ashoka Life Style, Dharampuri – 03, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 494001 2 - Ku. Pranti Khatri D/o Om Prakash Khatri Aged About 13 Years R/o House No 27/276, In Front Of Juvenile Court, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Present Address-H.No. 2, Ashoka Life Style, Dharampuri – 03, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 494001 3 - Ku. Minti Khatri D/o Om Prakash Khatri Aged About 12 Years R/o House No 27/276, In Front Of Juvenile Court, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Present Address-H.No. 2, Ashoka Life Style, Dharampuri – 03, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 494001 ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in MJC Case No. 13/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, 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 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.3. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of the CrPC against the applicant for grant of maintenance and claimed that the respondent No. 1 is legally married wife of the applicant who entered into wedlock with the present applicant on 14.07.2003 and due to their married life two children i.e. respondent No. 2 & 3 were born in the year 2004 & 2005. The applicant is a government servant and as per his pay-slip of the year 2015, he used to get salary Rs. 1,17,533/- per month. The applicant leveled false allegations on character of the respondent No. 1 and compelled her to go back from his house then the respondents are residing at Jagdalpur. The respondent No.1 along with her children went to her matrimonial house also but her in-laws did not permit them to enter into the house and applicant was also not willing to see the face of the respondent No.1 and after humiliating her refused to enter in to the house. 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. 20,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent No.3. 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 is also in Government job and is earning a sufficient amount and therefore she has the same liability for maintaining the respondents No. 2 and 3, as that of the present applicant. 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