1 2026:CGHC:2792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 213 of 2023 Bodhi Ram Sonkar S/o Shri Sukhiram Sonkar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Murra (Mundra), Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Mohani Bai Sonkar W/o Shri Bodhi Ram Sonkar Aged About 27 Years Caste Sonkar R/o Daupara, Arjunda, Police Staiton Arjunda, Tahsil Guderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupesh Kumar Sonkar S/o Shri Bodhi Ram Sonkar Aged About 2 Years Caste Sonkar R/o Daupara, Arjunda, Police Staiton Arjunda, Tahsil Guderdehi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 129/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant and respondent No.1 was performed as per Hindu Rites and Rituals on 08.03.2014, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 thereafter, they were living together and enjoying the married life and this wedlock the respondent No.2 was born on 19.01.2015. The respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC along with interim application for grant of maintenance amount for maintaining herself and her child. 4. the respondent has filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month for maintaining herself and her child. The respondent has contended in her application that after the marriage, the applicant was keeping her well and enjoying the married life, thereafter, the applicant was harassed/ill-treated by way of marpit with respondent. The respondent has made the other allegation against the applicant regarding cruelty like that the applicant always abused her and harassed the respondent by mentally & physically. Further, the respondent alleged that his family members also included in harassed/ill-treated of the respondent. Further the respondent alleged in her application that the applicant and his family members always made cruelty against her and she opposed, then the applicant committed marpit due to which the respondent come her matrimonial house and, thereafter, the applicant has not come for taking away to his house and now till date she is residing at her parents house. The respondent has further alleged that the applicant was always made cruelty with the respondent due to which there is no possible to live with the applicant and she have come to her parents house. Further, the respondent contended in her application that she is not having source of income and she is completely depended upon her parents 3 whereas the applicant is engaged in the work of kirana shop and his income of Rs. 75,000/-. The respondent stated in her application that the applicant has not managed for her maintenance after living separately by the respondent, therefore, the respondent prayed the maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- from the applicant per month. The applicant stated that the respondent was avoid to live with applicant and she left the house of the applicant by her own will, thereafter, the respondent filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance along with interim application for granting the maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/- for maintaining herself against the applicant and her application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 129/2017 and by order dated 01/11/2022, the application of the respondent of the maintenance amount was allowed against the applicant and the learned family court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent against the applicant. 5. 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 total Rs. 3,000/- 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. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned 4 order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 is living separately without any sufficient and cogent reason from his husband/applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance as per the provision contained under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 warranting 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar