1 2025:CGHC:50844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1234 of 2025 Rajesh Yadu (Yadav) S/o Shri Rewaram Yadu Aged About 40 Years R/o Vill- Sakin Rohra, P.S. And Tah- Simga, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Subhadra Aheer W/o Rajesh Yadu (Yadav) Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill Telawat, Tah.- Kanker, Dist. North Bastar Kanker C.G. 2 - Minor Ku. Khwahish Yadav D/o Rajesh Yadu (Yadav) Aged About 5 Years (Respondent No. 2 Through Mother Natural Guardian Smt. Subhadra Aheer), R/o Vill Telawat, Tah.- Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 13.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 77/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 144 of the BNSS filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife took place on 12.03.2018 with the consent of both the families according to Hindu rituals and customs at Rajim Ghatrai Mandir, thereafter they started residing together and after ten days only she left to stay at her workplace/maternal house and are living separately since then and out of their wedlock the respondent No. 02/daughter was born on 27.04.2019. 4. The respondent No.1/wife had filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS for grant of maintenance stating that after marriage she started living in her matrimonial house and after one month she left for her workplace, i.e. Vill-Korar, that she used to visit him and the applicant also visited her and they talked on mobile phone too, that the applicant stayed with her from 26.04.2022 to 07.05.2022, thereafter the applicant started mental and physical cruelty towards her for the demand of dowry, that the respondent No. 01 filed complaint at the police station, wherein after mutual understanding the complaint was withdrawn, thereafter the applicant/husband filed for divorce before learned Family Court which was dismissed and the appeal is pending till date. the respondent No.1/wife further submitted that the applicant has left the respondents without any sufficient reason and is also not maintaining them, she further stated that she earns Rs. 30,000/- per month, from which she pays about Rs. 10,000/- as monthly installment for home loan, that she is facing difficulty in maintaining herself and her daughter, she stated that the applicant is working at Community Health Centre Bhatapara as Dresser and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month and owns 02 Acres of land from which he earns Rs. 05 Lakhs per annum, therefore the respondents are entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. 3 5. 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 partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the total amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 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. 6. 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 No.1 without any sufficient reason has left the house of the applicant and voluntarily living separately from him, and she is earning Rs. 48,943/- per month as salary and she also owns a flat at Durg from which she gets Rs. 15,000/- per month as rent, therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself and also the respondent No.2. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 4 by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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