1 2025:CGHC:32099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1430 of 2024 Shoib Hasnain S/o Shahbuddin Sheikh Aged About 35 Years Ro Ch 320, Ward No. 8, Housing Board, Kohka, Police Station Supela, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Sajeda Parveen W/o Shoib Hasnain Aged About 39 Years R/o Idgah Road, Ward No. 7, Fareed Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 844/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and awarded an exorbitant amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. In the said application, it has is alleged that marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 12.12.2020 with Muslim rituals. The families of applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 and respondent was known to each other. Respondent Sajeda Parveen was younger sister applicant's aunt. It was further mentioned in the application that before the date of marriage, the family of applicant has demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondent for the marriage. On that the respondent had given the amount in two installments. On 18.08.2020, amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given through cheque and on 22.10.2020, amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was given through cheque. After her marriage, the family members of the applicant again demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for which they used to quarrel with the respondents and used to beat her. On this, the family of the respondent has given Rs. 1,00,000/- to the applicant's family. The respondent in her application had further mentioned that on 30.03.2021 the applicant had left her at her fathers house. The respondent had made complaint before Mahila Thana. The case was registered as Crime No. 50/21. 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, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and awarded an exorbitant amount of interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-. 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 respondent is well educted lady and having B.A., B.Ed. Degree, she was working as teacher in a private school and was earning 18 to 20 thousands Rupees. 3 She has left the job only for the purpose of getting maintenance amount from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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