1 2026:CGHC:5347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 463 of 2024 Smt. Lalita Alias Ishita Jaiswal W/o Raju Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Punjab National Bank Station Road Badbil District Kyonjhar (Odisha) At Present R/o C/o Smt. Kundra Shirsat Prathmesh Vihar House No.12 Ghuru Ameri Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Wrongly Mentioned As Smt. Lalita Alias Ishit Jaiswal In The Order ... Applicant versus Raju Jaiswal S/o Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Punjab National Bank Station Road Badbil District Kyonjhar (Odisha) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 250/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 took place on 10.12.2018 under Hindu Custom. After marriage the respondent and his family members started physical and mental cruelty and after some time she was sent to her parental house in July 2021 since than the petitioner is residing at her parental house. The petitioner is undergone for treatment of lower limb and the doctor has advised for operation. Since he petitioner is not having any source of income therefore she is unable to bear the operation expanses and purchase the medicine. The respondent being husband of petitioner has obligation and duty to provide sufficient amount for maintenance and medical expanses. The respondent who has responsibility to look after and not provide the maintenance to the petitioner then the petitioner filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and prayed for maintenance amount Rs. 50,000/- per month from the respondent. The respondent who has sufficient source of income and he is doing transport business and is also having property given on rent and thereby earning the huge amount and also having other immovable properties from which he obtains additional income. 4. The respondent has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the applicant. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the applicant and directed the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant. 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. 3 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 applicant is the legally married wife of the respondent and as such the respondent is having obligation and duty to look after and provide sufficient amount for maintenance looking to the increase of cost of living and also looking to the medical need of applicant. 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 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 250/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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 no such good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and thus after hearing all the statements 4 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