1 2025:CGHC:59716 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1497 of 2025 Shani Nayak S/o Munna Nayak Aged About 29 Years R/o - Village Paasal, House No. 27, Police Station- Jhilmili, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kiran W/o - Shani Nayak Aged About 25 Years R/o - Village Paasal, House No. 27, Police Station- Jhilmili, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village- Sarnapara Patna, Police Station And Tehsil Patna, District - Korea, C.G. 2 - Kumari Nitya Nayak D/o Shani Nayak Aged About 4 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian (Mother), Smt. Kiran, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village- Jharnapara Patna, Police Station And Tehsil- Patna, District- Korea, C.G.R/o - Village Paasal, House No. 27, Police Station- Jhilmili, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village- Sarnapara Patna, Police Station And Tehsil Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 154/2024, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 144 of BNSS filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 4,000/- per month each to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the parties married each other on 06/02/2020, as per Rituals and Customs. Since they, lived together and respondent No. 01 has given birth to her child respondent No. 02. in year 2022 the respondent No.01 started to live in her paternal house because the applicant is alleged to be cruel towards the respondent No. 01. The applicant does not take any care of respondent No. 01. The daughter of the parties is suffering from sickle cell. Respondent No. 01 claimed Rs. 20,000/- from applicant as maintenance amount. The respondent No. 01 preferred the application under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. before the learned Family Court. 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. 4,000/- per month each to the respondents. 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 respondent is not ready and willing to live with the applicant though he wants her to 3 live with him but one the other hand she wants only the award amount. It is submitted that the Family Court has failed to notice that the applicant is unemployed and he is ready to keep the respondents in his parental house. 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 Family Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar