1 2025:CGHC:29213 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1272 of 2019 Hanuman Yadav S/o Pawan Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Tahsil And Police Station Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Hemlata Yadav W/o Hanuman Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o At Present Fertilizer Colony, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shekhar Yadav S/o Hanuman Yadav Age About 2.5 Years, Minor, Through Legal Nature Mother Smt. Hemlata Yadav, S/o Hanuman Yadav, R/o At Present Fertilizer Colony, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 99/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month that the applicant has solemnized marriage with the respondent No. 1 on 02.04.2012 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom and due to their wedlock, the respondent No. 2 born and after few day of marriage, the applicant has harassed and tortured the applicant and demanded the money and motorcycle from the respondent No. 1 due to less dowry and in this regard, the respondent No. 1 has made complaint Mahila thana against the applicant, but did not any action by the Police authorities, thereafter, the applicant left the respondent No. 1 from matrimonial house and applicant is working as contractor in NTPC and earns Rs.15-2000/- and respondent has no any source of income, hence, the respondents have filed an application for seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/-. 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. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- 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. 3 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 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. 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 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 99/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, 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. 2,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2, 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 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, and considering the conditions of the respondents, the learned Family Court 4 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. 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