1 2026:CGHC:5581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 5 of 2024 Chhatrapal Singh Thakur S/o Ratan Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o 136, Ward Number 29, Hospital Colony, Near New Bus Stand Road, Pacharipara, Kuan Chowk, Distt- Durg CG Pin- 491001 ... Applicant versus 1 - Shrimati Leena Thakur W/o Chhatrapal Singh Thakur Aged About 37 Years Residing At C/o Sohan Singh Thakur, House Number 1590, In Front Of Gagan Book Centre Street, Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, CG 2 - Minor Adhiraj Singh Thakur S/o Chhatrapal Singh Thakur Aged About 5 Years Minor Hence Through Mother Shrimati Leena Thakur Residing At C/o Sohan Singh Thakur, House Number 1590, In Front Of Gagan Book Centre Street, Ashwani Nagar, Raipur, CG ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ahsiwin Panickar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ahsiwin Panickar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 655/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 8,000/- per month to RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the application and the respondent No.1 were married on 20.04.2016 and respondent No.1 shifted to her matrimonial home at Durg which consisted of parents of applicant and one unmarried sister. After living for a few months with the applicant, the respondent No.1 left for her parental home at Raipur on 03.07.2016. On 13.02.2017 respondent No.2 was born at Raipur who is the only child of the applicant and respondent No.1. On 06.11.2017 the respondent No.1 filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court concerned for herself and on behalf of respondent No.2 against the applicant seeknig Rs. 25,000/- per month as maintenance. By order dated 23.02.2019 the learned Family Court firstly granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondents, respectively. 4. The applicant herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the respondents. The learned Family Court after perusal of the documents passed the impugned order, and has 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 total Rs. 8,000/- 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 has left the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason and 3 with her own free will, thus, as per the provision contained in Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not entitled to be granted maintenance. 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 25.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 655/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents, 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 nay good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and 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 original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar