1 2025:CGHC:33875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1318 of 2019 Vinod Kumar Chauhan S/o Shri Chhedu Ram Chauhan Aged About 42 Years Caste- Ganda, R/o Village Bahera Tahsil Sakti, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus Brinda Bai Chauhan D/o Shri Kartik Ram Chauhan Aged About 38 Years Wo Shri Vionod Kumar Chauhan, Caste- Ganda, R/o Village Bahera, Tahsil Sakti, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., At Present R/o Village Nawagaon, Tahsil-Champa, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vishvanath Shrivas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Link Court, Sakti, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.66/2019, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.18 17:56:35 +0530 2 for grant of the maintenance amount which has been disposed of with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent till her life time or till her remarriage or till next date of order passed by any Court of Law. Hence, this revision. 2. The brief facts of the case is that The respondent is the married wife of the petitioner, and their marriage was solemnized in 1997 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage ceremony, the respondent went to the petitioner's house and started living together, and two children were born out of their wedlock. After spending many years of peaceful married life, in 2017, the respondent started quarreling with the petitioner and his family members without any proper reason. She left the petitioner's house and started living with her brother-in-law's (Jeeja) house in Bihar. Despite the petitioner's repeated attempts to bring her back, she refused to return. The petitioner then filed a complaint with the Nagarada Police Station, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), and the "Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra Sakti" conducted counseling, advising them to approach the court. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. After service of notice, the respondent appeared before the learned court below, filed a reply, and later filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance. However, the learned court below disposed of the application without giving the petitioner an opportunity to examine his witnesses. The petitioner was directed to sign the order sheet, and upon refusal, was threatened with jail. The court then passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to the respondent as maintenance until her lifetime, remarriage, or further court orders. Hence, this revision petition. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Family Court, Link Court Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), is bad in law and liable to be quashed/set aside. The Family Court passed the maintenance order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to examine witnesses, and the proceedings were disposed of without proper consideration, with the petitioner being coerced into signing the order sheet under threat of jail. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his willingness to live with the respondent. Instead of resolving the marital issues, the court passed an erroneous order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance. The respondent is living separately without a valid reason, while the petitioner is supporting his two minor sons and elderly parents. The order passed by the Family Court is against the law and liable to be quashed/set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondent has submitted this application under Section 125 CrPC and has requested that her marriage with the applicant took place in 1997. They have two children from their married life, whose ages are 19 and 17 years. The applicant always beats the respondent after drinking alcohol and quarrels with her out of suspicion. The applicant abused and beat her and threw her out of the house in January 2018. The applicant appeared and expressed that the respondent has been living an adulterous life for the last thirteen-fourteen years and has relationships with many boys. The Family Court conducted separate counselling between the parties after which a compromise was reached between the parties regarding 4 maintenance of three thousand rupees per month. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti