1 2025:CGHC:34090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 9 of 2022 Ramsevak Sahu S/o Thansingh Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Chicha, Tehsil And P.S. Patan, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Madhu Sahu W/o Ramsevak Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Chicha, Tehsil And P.S. Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present Village- Sasha, P.S. And Tehsil- Pallari, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Pushpendra Sahu S/o Ramsevak Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Chicha, Tehsil And P.S. Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present Village- Sasha, P.S. And Tehsil- Pallari, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sikha Sahu D/o Ramsevak Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Chicha, Tehsil And P.S. Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, At Present Village- Sasha, P.S. And Tehsil- Pallari, District- Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in MJC No. 41/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 by the respondent for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized in year 1999 as per their social norme tradition and from their married life they have 1 son and 1 daughter. The respondent No. 1 has after the 15 days of marriage has confessed to the applicant that she liked another man Ishwar Bahu and in past, before her marriage with applicant she had lived with Ishwar Bahu as his wife for 15 days in his village Basha. Later the respondent No. 1 also said that she had married to the applicant in the pressure of her parents. The applicant and respondent No.1 lived together for 12-13 years then the respondent No. 1 without informing to applicant left her matrimonial home along with her children, thereafter applicant made various attempts for living together, but respondent No.1 has clearly denied the same and therefore the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance on 02.01.2017. 4. The respondent has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. After perusing the documents and hearing the submissions of the parties, and the learned Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 as maintenance. 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 applicant is having no any source of income as the condition of applicant was very critical that he lost his vision of both the eyes. It is further submitted that 3 the applicant has made various attempts for living together but respondent No.1 has clearly denied, and even today the applicant is ready to live with the respondent No.1. 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 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in MJC No. 41/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, 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, 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. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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