1 2025:CGHC:40123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 52 of 2024 Devendra Tandon Son Of Balchand Tandon Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Kanwar, Tahsil - Gurur, District - Balod, Chahttisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Shalini Tandon Wife Of Devendra Tandon Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Harfatarai, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 37/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC :led by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent has :led an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant, alleging that the marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 18.02.2022 according to the Hindu Rites and Ritual, and after the marriage the respondent was residing as wife of the applicant at her matrimonial home. After some time of the marriage the applicant has consumed liquor and he and his family members were harassed and mentally tortured to the respondent in the name of demand of dowry and they were not taking care to her properly to the respondent and also using :lthy language, due to this respondent has left from her matrimonial hose and she is residing separately at her parental home, and she does not have any source of income and the applicant is running business of Kirana Shop and having agriculture 25-30 acre land. 4. The applicant herein has :led the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondent. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC :led by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 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 respondent is voluntarily residing separately from the applicant without any suAcient 3 reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 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 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 37/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC :led by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and in:rmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision :led 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 in:rmity 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. 4 10. Let a certi:ed 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