1 2025:CGHC:30241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1287 of 2018 Vikesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Jeewan Lal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Junwani, Thana Bhakhara, Civil And Revenue District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Vandana Sahu W/o Shri Vikesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Saloni, Thana And Tahsil Nagari, Civil And Revenue District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 51/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari, allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant was taken place with non-applicant on 22.04.2014 as per the custom in the society at Salouni, District – Dhamtari, and the non-applicant did not adjusted herself with the applicant and left the house and started residing with her parents. The non-applicant file the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with the averment that after marriage the applicant as well as his parents have harassed her by demand of dowry Motor cycle, Cooler, Fridge and utensils and due to harassment she consume the poison thereafter his father has sold the agriculture land and given a some of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the applicant but there is no change in the nature of the applicant as well as his family members and pressurize her to eat the tablet of removal of the pregnancy therefore miscarriage was taken place and on the basis of the report lodge by her the applicant and his parents have been prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. The non-applicant has filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. with claiming a maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 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. 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 the learned trial judge has failed to see that the monthly income of the applicant is not 3 proved and from perusal of the documents attached with the reply and the applicant is not ready to reside with the applicant therefore she is not entitled for the maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set-aside. 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 30.07.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 51/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Dhamtari, allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent, 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar