1 2025:CGHC:47332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1131 of 2025 Hanumant Lal S/o Late Shri Jeevan Lal Joshi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Raipura, Police Station And Tehsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh Presently Posted At Office Of The Deputy Inspector General, Regional Headquarters, Border Security Force, 3-E, Chhoti Ssb Road, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan ... Applicant versus Smt. Anarkali W/o Shri Hanumant Lal, D/o Late Ghanshyam Anant R/o Village Raipura, Police Station And Tehsil Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh Present Address Village Markadeeh, Post Kapan, Police Outpost Naila, Police Station And Tehsil Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 302/2023, whereby the learned Family Court 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 08.04.2014 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 marriage, the respondent joined the applicant at his residence in Village Raipura, District Balod and the parties resided together as husband and wife. The applicant was presently serving as a Constable (G.D.) in the 48th Battalion of the Border Security Force (BSF), posed earlier in the Samba Sector, Jammu and Kashmir, and now at the Regional Headquarters, BSF, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, and has remained posted at difficult and remote areas as part of his duty to the nation. It is also an admitted position that no child was born from their wedlock. The respondent after staying for approximately two years past-marriage, voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justification. On 07.11.2022, she called her brother to Durg Bus Stand and quietly left the house with all her jewelry and person belongings, without informing the applicant or his family members. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental home and filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC making wild, unsubstantiated, and baseless allegations against the applicant. In her application the respondent alleged that the applicant used to abuse and assault her, that she was driven out of the house due to her inability to conceive a child, and that the applicant has contracted a second marriage with one Ms. Pushpanjali Singh and has fathered a child with her. Based on these averments, she prayed for a monthly maintenance on Rs. 20,000/-. 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material 3 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 respondent without any sufficient reason have left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him. Therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant as per the provisions of Section 125(4) of CrPC. 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 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. Let a certified 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