1 2025:CGHC:36870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1146 of 2023 Prafulla Bhainsare S/o Late Krishna Bhainsare Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lamnadar, Post Bagerkasa Police Station Bortalav Tehsil Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Temporary R/o Government Primary School Village Mudhipar, Post Banbaghera Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Unita Bhainsare W/o Prafulla Bhainsare Aged About 29 Years Temprorily Residing In The House Of Her Father Lakhan Lal Nandeshwar Ganganagar, Near Durga Mandir, Khamtarai, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) 492008. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Nasimuddin Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 299/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent in the instant case got married on 20/08/2011 according to their local custom and tradition in Raipur, thereafter the applicant and respondent started living as husband and wife in the Matrimonial Home of the respondent. The respondent was very autocratic women who has never respected the matrimonial ties. She has not left single occasion for disrespecting the Family Members of the Husband which give rise to the severance of matrimonial relations between applicant and respondent. On 04/11/2019 the altercation broke out between the respondent and Family Members of applicants wherein the respondent has attacked on the family members of the applicant. Thereafter the respondent left her matrimonial house and started living separately in her parental House. Applicant has called various attempt for taking back the respondent to his hose which goes in vain ultimately. For seeing no chance of returning back of respondent the applicant has applied for the divorce at Family Court Rajnandgaon with the respondent which gets registered as Civil Suit No. 66-A/2020. On 22/10/2021 the family Court Rajnandgaon has passed a judgment and decree in the Civil Suit No. 66-A/2020 wherein the learned Family Court Rajnandgaon has granted divorce to the applicant. After the divorce the applicant has remarried to some other lady and peacefully living with her. The respondent has filed the Maintenance Application before the Family Court Raipur which gets registered as Criminal Case No. 299/2022 after more than three years of leaving her matrimonial home just to harass the applicant. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the 3 respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent per month. 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 applicant is paying huge amount of money as EMI to the bank and this fact has not been considered properly by the Family Court, and foreseeing the amount of EMI it would be very cruel to husband and beyond his financial capacities. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 299/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 parties, 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar