1 2025:CGHC:32962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1232 of 2019 Shailendra Kumar Nagre S/o Shri Manoj Nagre Aged About 31 Years R/o Near Water Tank, Gogaon, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Other Address - C/o Laldhar Deep, Block No. 10, In Front Of Garden, Rajendra Kirana Stores, Balwati Nagar, Heerapur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Parwati Nagre W/o Shri Shailendra Kumar Nagre Aged About 30 Years R/o Kota Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, Gudiyari, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 227/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized on 30.01.2013 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Nehru Nagar Bhilai and prior to marriage both the parties residing as husband and wife since year 2009. The marriage of the parties is love marriage. The applicant and the respondent resides together since 7 years but no issue bornfrom the said wedlock thereafter they residing separately. Further the applicant ousted her from the hosue and resides with another girl namely Gauri and she made complaint before the Police Station Gudiyari in this regard. The respondent was previously married with one Panna Lal Sahu who died in the year 2008-09 from the wedlock of said Palla Lal and the respodent, one daughter and one son and applicant agreed to take care of both the children. The respondent stated that the applicant earning Rs. 400/- daily and the respondent is residing separately since 1.5 years from the applicant. 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 respondent and directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 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 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. 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