1 2026:CGHC:5348 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 430 of 2024 Raju Jaiswal S/o Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Near Punjab National Bank Station Road Barbil, District- Keonjhar, Orissa ... Applicant versus Smt. Lalita @ Eshit Jaiswal W/o Raju Jaiswal Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Punjab National Bank Station Road Barbil, District- Keonjhar (Udisha), Present Adress- C/o Smt. Kundra Sirsart Partmesh Vihar, House No. 12, Ghuru Ameri, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. F.S. Khare, 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 respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant with respondent took place on 10.12.2018 under Hindu Custom. the respondent filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs. 50000/- per month from the applicant, pleading inter alia that their married has been solemnized in the 10.12.2018 according to custom of Hindu ritual and rights in Barbil district- Keonjhar (Odisha). It was further pleaded that after marriage the applicant and his relatives started to tortured the respondent for the reason of dowry, therefore she was return her parental house with her parents without knowledge of applicant and living her parent 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 of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- 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 3 any sufficient cause, and respondent has also received money for one 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 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 respondent, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- 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