1 2026:CGHC:5579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 155 of 2024 Mukesh Sharma @ Raja Sharma S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sharma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Dindayal Colony, M.I.G.-48 District, Mungeli (C.G.). ... Applicant versus Prerana @ Sanskriti Pandey W/o Mukesh Sharma @ Raja Sharma Aged About 22 Years Through D/o Sushil Pandey, R/o Village Mohtarakurmi Post Devarhat, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, 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 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.343/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, 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. 4,500/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent was without any reason left her matrimonial house on dated 01.12.2019 and residing separately RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 therefore applicant has made a complaint before SHO Civil lines Bilaspur on dated 03.12.2019 thereafter applicant has filed the application under Section 9 of Hindu marriage act before family court of Bilaspur learned family court has send the notice to the respondent after service of the notice respondent had appear before the family court filed and she has filed the reply before the family court and she denied to living together thereafter applicant has not press his application under Section 09 of Hindu marriage act due to denied of living together by which the learned trial court has disposed the application filed by applicant on dated 06.12.2022. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance amount before learned Family Court whereby requested for maintenance and to direct the applicant to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as a maintenance. 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. 4,500/- per month to the respondent. 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, therefore, as per provision contained in Section 3 125(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 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No.343/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, 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. 4,500/- 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