1 2025:CGHC:31329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 213 of 2020 Alok Barya S/o Sureshchandra Barya Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Balaji Nagar Colony, Kosmi, District Balaghat, (M.P.), District : Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pratika Barya W/o Shri Alok Barya Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Balaji Nagar Colony, Kosmi, District Balaghat (M.P.), At Present R/o. Professor Colony, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku.Sakshi D/o Alok Barya Aged About 11 Years No. 2 Are Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Ward No. 4, Balaji Nagar Colony, Kosmi, District Balaghat (M.P.), At Present R/o. Professor Colony, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Nansi Barya D/o Alok Barya Aged About 9 Years No. 3 Are Minor, Through Their Natural Guardian Mother (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Ward No. 4, Balaji Nagar Colony, Kosmi, District Balaghat (M.P.), At Present R/o. Professor Colony, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 2 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Rakesh Das Manikpuri holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.486/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance before the Family Court Kawardha against the applicant (husband). The relationship between the applicant and Smt. Pratika (respondent No. 1, wife) began with love, and they got married on 12.03.2007, despite belonging to different castes. The decision to marry was made when the wife's father was ill, and after his death, the couple started living together at Balaghat. After the marriage, the wife was allegedly assaulted by the husband, but she didn't reveal her grief and endured the troubles. About four years ago, the husband informed the wife that he would be transferred to 3 Kawardha for work and would have to leave for some time. The wife and children initially stayed at Kawardha but later moved to Balaghat. Despite the wife being assaulted, the husband allegedly expressed his intention to marry another woman. The wife discovered that the husband had a relationship with a woman named Siwangi and had been living with her for a long time. When questioned about Siwangi a year ago, the husband allegedly threatened to kill the wife. The wife filed an application for maintenance, and the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no instruction in the present case as his client is not responding. 4. I have perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,500/-to respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing that the matter has amicably settled between the parties and the same was found to be genuine. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the compromise presented by both parties is accepted by the Family Court and applicant is directed to pay the maintenance as aforementioned. 4 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil