1 2025:CGHC:27426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1174 of 2018 Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Shri Ishwari Prasad Aged About 35 Years Occupation Government Servent R/o Sarangpurkala, Police Station And Tahsil Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Nandrani Chandrawanshi W/o Shri Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Sarangpurkala, Police Station Bodla, Presently Resided At Shyam Nagar, Kawardha, P. S. Kawardha Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shristi Chandrawanshi D/o Dr. Kanti Kumar Chandrawanshi Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian I. E. Mother Smt. Nandrani Chandrawanshi, R/o Village Sarangpurkala, Police Station Bodla, Presently Resided At Shyam Nagar, Kawardha, P. S. Kawardha Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Dharmendra Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Dharmendra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Kabeerdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 114/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Kabeerdham (Kawardha), allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent No.1 was married on 06.05.2010 under Hindu rites and ritual and out of their wedlock the respondent No.2 born. The applicant and his parents just after the marriage had started cruel treatment on account of demand of dowry. The respondent No.1 and her parent had tried level best to convince the applicant and his parent for resolving the issue but the applicant and his parent on count to another had continued the cruel treatment. Lastly, the respondents were left by the applicant from Dantewada to Kabeerdham at her parent house with a warning that if the respondents will came to his house then they will be killed. Aggrieved by the act on part of applicant, the respondents had filed application Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Kabeerdham against the applicant and sought Rs. 25,000/- per month on account of monthly maintenance. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents and specifically stated that the respondent 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 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. 4,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 3,000/- 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 3 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 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 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 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Kabeerdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 114/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Kabeerdham (Kawardha), 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. 4,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter, 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 applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 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. 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