1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1091 of 2025 Chandra Kumar S/o Bhaduram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Budhwara, P.S. And Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Laxmin Bai Rajput W/o Chandra Kumar Rajput Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Majgaon, Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikhyat Arora, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 30/2024, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed 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. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent claims to be the wife of the applicant and as per the version of the respondent, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized way back 10 years ago RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 through Hindu Marriage Rituals. The respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, as M.Cr.C. No. 30/2024 stating that the applicant physically and mentally harassed her by saying that she had no child due to which she left her matrimonial house and claimed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant. 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. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 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 there is no proof submitted by the respondent to show that she is the wife of the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondent has failed to provide any evidence related to the income of 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 3 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