1 2025:CGHC:27392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1138 of 2018 Heeralal S/o Jamuna Prasad Aged About 27 Years Caste Chamar (Harijan) R/o Village Katgodi , Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sangeeta Sonwani W/o Heeralal Sonwani D/o Ghanshayam Sonwani Caste Chamar , R/o Village Katgodi, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat ,district Korea Chhattisgarh Presently R/at Village Cherwapara (Kharwat), Tahsil Baikunthpur, District – Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumar Samya D/o Heeralal Sonwani Mother Smt. Sangeeta Sonwani,aged About 2 Year, Caste Chamar (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangeeta Sonwani Presently R/at Village Cherwapara (Kharwat), Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 17/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea, 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 800/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No. 1 and applicant had solemnized their marriage on 08.05.2014 according to Hindu Custom and Rituals at village Cherwapara, due to said wedlock one child respondent No. 2 is born. The application of the respondents are based on the ground that after the marriage the petitioner has given the cruel treatment to the respondents in the name of demanding the dowry. It is further stated that she has no any source of income and the petitioner has a sufficient means to maintain to the respondents/applicants and seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 3000/- total Rs. 8000/-. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application and specifically stated that the respondent without any sufficient reason left the house of the applicant on her own motion. He further stated that he has no any source of income and also stated that the respondent 3 No. 1 is a healthy woman and she has a other source of income to maintain herself and her children. The learned Family Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2018, whereby partly the allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 800/- 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. 4. 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 learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount in favour of respondents is higher side looking to the condition of the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondents without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, as per provisions under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order and decree is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 4 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, and considering the conditions of the respondents, 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar