1 2025:CGHC:36470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1309 of 2024 Kishan Pal S/o Girdhar Pal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Kongiyakala, Thana - Parpodi, Tahsil/District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus Santoshi Pal W/o Kishan Pal Aged About 27 Years At Present R/o Village - Dapka, Thana/Tahsil - Khairagah, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Link Court, Khairagarh, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 58/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly 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.1,500/- per month to the respondent/wife. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent are the husband and wife and it is admitted position in the case the marriage of the parties PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.29 10:47:33 +0530 2 was taken place in year 2015 as per the custom prevailing in the community. Further averment is that due to harassment of the applicant she started to resides with her parents from in year 2021 and after some time when the applicant is not taking the care and not provided any amount for the purpose of maintenance of the respondent, then she filed the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 10.08.2022 with claiming a maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month for herself. The case is fixed for counselling before the Family Court, there after learned Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month amount of maintenance in favor of the non-applicant. The applicant produce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his case and he also produce the evidence to establish the fact that she is residing separately without any cause though two children are residing with father. Hence, the present revision. 3. 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 learned Family Court erred in passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favor of the respondent, despite her failure to prove valid reasons for residing separately. Therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. The maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and against the evidence available on record, as the respondent is allegedly living an adulterous life and does not show any love or affection towards her own children. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and passed the impugned order without considering relevant documents. The order was passed without any proof of income of the applicant/husband, who is a laborer, while the respondent/wife is capable of maintaining herself by doing tailoring work and earning approximately 3 Rs. 5,000/- per month. Furthermore, land is registered in her name under Khasra No. 229/6 in Village Dapka, Tehsil Khairgarh. The respondent/wife attempted to assault the husband and his children with the intention to kill them. Therefore, the husband and children are not safe in her custody. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 4. 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 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Link Court, Khairagarh, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 58/2022 , partly 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. 1,500/- per month to the respondent/wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti