1 2025:CGHC:36849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 165 of 2024 Deepchand Panika S/o Janakram Panika, Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Railay Job Office Address- P.W.I. Staff Department Engineering Railway Path (Mukardam), R/o House No. 776/A-776 Near By Railway Hospital Railway Colony Tarbahar Naka Railway P.S. Torwa Tahsil Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Kumari Bai Panika W/o Deepchand Panika, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Newsa Parsada, P.S. Chakarbhatha, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Anushree Mishra, Advocate, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC Case No. 231/2021, 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. 5,500/- per month to the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance against the applicant and pray Rs. 35,000/- per month. As per the application under Section 125 of CrPC of the respondent that the marriage of the respondent with the applicant was performed before near about 35 years as per Hindu Rituals. Outside of the wedlock one daughter namely Nitu was born and they are leaved with with other at applicant’s house. As per the application of the respondent, after the marriage of 20-25 years applicant started torture and temper to the respondent and his behaviour was very cruel against her therefore she live separately from him. The applicant is posed as engineering department in railway as PWI staff as per the application of the respondent, his monthly salary is Rs. 70,000/-. The respondent is unable to maintain herself, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for maintenance before the Family Court. 4. The applicant herein has filed 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 filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- to the respondent per month. 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 3 evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent is wife of Jagdish Baghel and no divorce decree has been passed between them, therefore, in the absence of divorce with her husband she is not legal wife of the applicant according to Hindu Marriage Act. 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