1 2026:CGHC:3910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1267 of 2023 Praveen Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Badri Prasad Bhardwaj Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Uchchbhatti, Post Selar, Police Station And Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Prabhat Chowk, Near Sai Mandir, Below Peepal Tree, Chingrajpara, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Nandani Bhardwaj W/o Praveen Bhardwaj Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Nagoi Mohalla Uraiyapara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shreshth Bhardwaj S/o Praveen Bhardwaj Aged About 11 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Nandani Bhardwaj, R/o Village Nagoi Mohalla Uraiyapara, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 08/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month to RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that this is undisputed fact that the non-applicant No.1 is the wife of the applicant and the non-applicant No.2 was born during the married life of them. Both the parties are residing separately. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized at on 11.05.2014 at Village Uchchbhatti according to Hindu Rituals. The non-applicant No. leveled series of allegations that a few days of after the marriage, the applicant kept well but few months later the applicant and his family members started to torture physically and mentally for demand of dowry. Due to assault and harassment, the non-applicant became ill. Few months later, the non-applicant No.1 became pregnant, then she came to her parental house. On 07.11.2020 the non-applicant No.2 was born at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur by cesarean delivery. It is further alleged that the applicant came to take the non-applicants with him at Village Uchchbhatti but he again started to harass and assault for demand of dowry, due to which the non-applicant No.1 became ill again. Then the non-applicant No.1 went to her parental house at Village Nagoi with her father. Thereafter, the non-applicant No.1 filed an application at Police Station Mahila Thana Bilaspur against her the applicant and his family members on 28.07.2021, where the applicant appeared and clearly denied to keep the non-applicants with him. The non-applicants filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondents. The learned Family 3 Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondents. 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 living separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per the provision contained in Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not entitled for grant of payment. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 08/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, 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 respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. 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