1 2025:CGHC:54859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1361 of 2025 Chitrasen Bhardwaj S/o Late Parauram Bhardwaj Aged About 50 Years R/o Dhothma, Police Station And Tahsil- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Rekha Bhardwaj W/o Chitrasen Aged About 46 Years R/o Dhothma, Police Station And Tahsil- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) 2 - Seema Bhardwaj D/o Chitrasen Bhardwaj Aged About 19 Years R/o Dhothma, Police Station And Tahsil- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) 3 - Bhagyashree Bhardwaj D/o Chitrasen Bhardwaj Aged About 21 Years R/o Dhothma, Police Station And Tahsil- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 120/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC 9led by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 1993 as per the Hindu Custom and out of the wedlock, they were bless with four daughters and a son. One of the daughter has died after she got married in the year 2021. The only son Shiva Bhardwaj and another daughter Hemlata got married. It is further provided that the applicant used to torture the respondent No.1 physically and mentally both after consuming liquor and has got married to another lady in the year 2021. The applicant has been enjoying his life peacefully with some other lady living with him and the respondents were ousted from the house by the applicant. The applicant is having 5 acres of agricultural land in his name in joint ownership of his family and receives produce worth of Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum and further his brother Tarachand gets Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance. Therefore, the respondents 9led an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant has 9led the reply and denied the contention of the application 9led 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 total amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents. 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 respondents 3 are living separately from the applicant willfully and the applicant is still willing to live with them and therefore there is no justi9cation in holding that the respondents have been ousted from the house by the applicant herein nor they have su@cient cause to live separately from the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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 in9rmity 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. Let a certi9ed copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar