1 2025:CGHC:32616 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 67 of 2022 Dilip @ Satish Pandey S/o Ambika Prasad Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Ganjpara Bemetara, Tehsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Present Address New Changorbhata, Near Sahu Aata Chakki, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Preeti Pandey W/o Dilip @ Satish Pandey Aged About 31 Years Present Address Sundar Nagar No. 02 Ward No. 12, Bemetara, Tehsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 132/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 per month. The application was filed by the applicant herein on the grounds that she was married to the petitioner on 08.06.2017 according to Hindu rites & rituals at village Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara. But, after some time of the marriage the Applicant & other family members used to harass the respondent for not bringing Rs.5,00,000 Lakh, A.C. and car as dowry. On 31.08.2018 when the uncle of respondent came to Raipur to take the respondent for the Teej Festival, the present applicant went out of the House, even when the respondent called up, he did not returned home, thereafter the sister-in-law of the present applicant namely Varsha Pandey, sent the respondent to the maternal home for Teej Festival. After the Festival the applicant did not come to receive the respondent and then on January 2019 when the father of respondent namely Durgashankar Chaturvedi himself called the present applicant for reconciliation, then the present applicant ignored him by the ill treatment of the in-laws. On 24.02.2019 in a social meeting conducted at Ganjpara Bemetara, the present applicant again misbehaved with the father of respondent and the present applicant ready to take back to the respondent on 03.03.2019 but again the present applicant not taken back to the respondent wife and only talk about Rs. 5,00,000. Thereafter on 19.03.2020 the respondent wife has moved a complaint application before the Mahila Thana, Bemetara against the present applicant and other family members and after counseling, the present applicant taken back to the respondent on 22.06.2020 to his house present at Raipur and given threatening to the respondent wife to withdraw the case. On 25.06.2020 an unnatural offence has been done by the present applicant with the respondent wife and on 08.07.2020 a offence under Section 498A, 377, and 34 of I.P.C. has been registered against the present applicant and family members. 3 The applicant was working as Coordinator at Mother Pride Higher Secondary School, Sunder Nagar Raipur and got the salary of Rs.30,000 per month and in addition, the present applicant having own house and Plot at Bemetara and the applicant also got rent from that particular house, and thereafter the applicant also having 04-05 acre ancestral property at Village-Ghoghrali, Dist.-Bemetara (C.G.). On the basis of aforesaid grounds the respondent wife has sought for Rs.20,000 per month as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 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. 4,000/- 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 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 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 4 supports the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 132/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- 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. 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