1 2025:CGHC:29206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1352 of 2019 Motilal S/o Mahipat, Aged About 46 Years R/o Bhatgaon, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sooraj Bai W/o Motilal, Aged About 45 Years R/o Shivprasad Nagar, Chowki Basdei, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 81/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur, 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. 6,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking the maintenance from the applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 stating that the marriage between the respondent and applicant had taken place 20 years ago as per the Hindu custom and tradition. It is further alleged that after the lapse of 15 years of marriage, the applicant started to misbehave with the respondent on the ground that they do not have any issue. It was alleged by the respondent that the applicant got married with another lady and deserted the respondent, hence she had filed an application seeking maintenance. 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. 6,000/- 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 the respondent is not his wife and she is a real wife of one Dharamjeet and there is a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending between Dharamjeet and respondent. The respondent has not produced any proper evidence to prove her marriage, therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. 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 14.10.2019 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 81/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur, 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. 6,000/- 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar