1 2026:CGHC:5832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1262 of 2024 Pemanlal Sinha S/o Dhannuram Sinha Aged About 30 Years By Caste Kalar, R/o Village Unkari, Tahsil Charama, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker C G Presently Posted 21 Battalion, Karkabhate, Balod, C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Parvati Sinha W/o Pemanlal Sinha Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hatkongera, Thana Kanker Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker At Presently R/o Lattipara, Kanker Thana And Tahsil Kanker, District – Uttar Baster Kanker, C.G. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Kanker, District – Uttar Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 24/2022, 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. 5,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent in the application under Section 125 of CrPC, has alleged inter alia that with the consent of the parties, marriage was solemnized on 10.02.2021 at Shitla Mandir. It was further stated that as the applicant is in job at his place of work at RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Rajnandgaon and he always visit to her place. From January, 2022, the applicant had not return and thereafter always use to abuse the respondent. It was further alleged that the applicant is a Government Employee and earning Rs. 40,000/- per month as a salary and having 7 acres of land and from that he is earning Rs. 1,00,000/- per years, hence, prayed for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 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. 5,000/- 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 not married wife of the applicant and the learned Family Court did not consider that a false case under Section 376, 294, 506 and 376(2) of IPC was registered against the applicant and in the said case the applicant was acquitted vide judgment dated 29.10.2021, and an application under Section 125 of CrPC was just to harass 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. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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