1 2025:CGHC:43243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1058 of 2025 Sanjay Baghel S/o Mahesh Baghel, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Batwani, Post Palari, Police Station Lakhanwada, Tahsil And District Sivni (M.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt Kiran Baghel W/o Sanjay Baghel, Aged About 34 Years R/o By Father Jatar Singh Baghel, Brinda Nagar, Camp 01, Ward No. 17, Near Primary School, Next To Gupta Flour Mill, P.S.- Chhavni, Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Harsh Baghel S/o Sanjay Baghel, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kiran Baghel, R/o By Father Jatar Singh Baghel, Brinda Nagar, Camp 01, Ward No. 17, Near Primary School, Next To Gupta Flour Mill, P.S.- Chhavni, Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Anwar Baghel S/o Sanjay Baghel, Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kiran Baghel, R/o By Father Jatar Singh Baghel, Brinda Nagar, Camp 01, Ward No. 17, Near Primary School, Next To Gupta Flour Mill, P.S.- Chhavni, Bhilai, Tah. And District Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 975/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month (each) to the respondents No.2 and 3. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents preferred an application under section 125 of the CrPC against the applicant for grant of maintenance and claimed that respondent No.1 is legally married wife and respondent No. 2 and 3 are their child. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.06.2009 as per the rituals of Hindu religion and caste. Thereafter out of the wed-lock two children, the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein was born who is presently residing with his mother. The application of the respondents further stated that in the marriage of respondent No.1, her father provided all kinds of dowry and other goods as per per his status, but after marriage, applicant used to harass her by quarreling and mentally harassing her all day long. Respondent No. 1 was working in a private job in Nagpur at the time of her marriage. The applicant influenced by his family members, brought respondent No.1 to her mother's house in August 2010 and left him there. At that time respondent No. 1 was pregnant and on 13.10.2010 respondent No. 2 harsh was born in her mother's house. Thereafter, when the applicant was counselled by his family members, he took respondent No. 1 with him to Nagpur and after one month, when the office of he applicant was shifted to Delhi, the applicant went to Delhi for his job. After the applicant went to Delhi, respondent No. 1 by the in-laws used to abuse her daily and harass her by saying that he had not given any dowry, then the respondent No. 1 left her in-laws' house in the year 2011 and went to her 3 parents' house and since then has been living in her father's house. 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 respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month (each) to the respondents No.2 and 3. 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 even when respondent No. 1 lived in Delhi, she used to harass applicant in various ways, there she used to call the applicant's office at times and behave in highly abusive manner which was adversely affecting the applicant's business work as well as his health. The respondent No.1 had stopped establishing marital relations with the applicant for almost two years. Fed up with all this, the applicant left his job in Delhi and came back village home and after returning from Delhi the respondent No.1's behaviour became more cruel towards the applicant and his family members. The respondent No.1 used to unnecessarily fight with the family on every issue and threatened that she would file a report him for dowry harassment, the complaint regarding which was written complaint by the applicant on 29.08.2018 and 02.02.2019 to the Police Station in-charge Lakhanwada, District – Sivni, Madhya Pradesh. When the respondent 4 No. 1, taking advantage of her father being employed in the police department, lodged a crime in the Police Station Lakhanwada against the applicant and his family members by falsely accusing them of demanding dowry and assaulting her. 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar