1 2026:CGHC:5349 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 284 of 2024 Saurabh Dwivedi S/o Shyam Bihari Dwivedi Aged About 38 Years R/o Q. No. 9/25 Green Park Colony Maharana Pratap Chowk Bilaspur District Bilaspur And Present R/o Flat No. A-7, Rajeev Lochan Parisar, Kachna Housing Board, In Front Ashirwad Kingdom Kachna Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ritu Dwivedi W/o Saurabh Dwivedi Aged About 34 Years R/o Q. No. N.C. 57, CSEB Colony, Korba East, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.14/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 filed against the applicant by the respondent and sought maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month before the learned Family Court concerned. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 30.05.2015 under the Hindu Rites and Custom. Thereafter, the respondent was living with the applicant at her matrimonial house. It is alleged that after the marriage the applicant used to commit marpit with the respondent after coming home by consuming liquor. It is also alleged that the family members of the applicant also use to harass her. Thereafter, since 16.12.2018, the respondent is living separately from the applicant at her parental house. 4. The applicant 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 under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. 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 living separately from the applicant with her own free will and without any sufficient cause, and respondent has also received money for one 3 time settlement from the 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 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.14/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent, 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 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. 4 10. Let a certified copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar