1 2025:CGHC:29538 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 969 of 2017 Nitesh Kushwaha S/o Ramvishal Kushwaha, Aged About 30 Years Caste Koir, R/o Village Karji, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Sangita W/o Nitesh Kushwaha, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Karji, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Krishna, S/o Nitesh Kushwaha, Aged About One And Half Year, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Revisioner No.1 R/o Village Karji, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 25.09.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 38/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking the maintenance from the applicant stating that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 has taken place on 27.06.2015 and out of their wedlock the respondent No.2 born. After marriage when the respondent No.1 conceived thereafter, the behavior of the applicant was changed for the respondent No. 1 and he started to torture her. On 06.12.2015 the respondent No. 1 gave birth to respondent No.2. After the birth of the child the applicant deserted the respondent No.1 therefore she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court. 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 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 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 has sufficient means to maintain herself and the entire allegation which has been made in the application of 125 of Cr.P.C. is false and 3 fabricated. 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