1 2026:CGHC:5621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 921 of 2024 • Ashish Kumar Pandey S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 34 Years (Mentioned As - 32 Years In The Impugned Order), R/o Quarter No. 15/a, Street-24, Sector-7, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Civil And Revenue Distt. - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • Smt. Ankita Pandey W/o Ashish Kumar Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Type-3, D.S.-203, Kirundul, Tehsil And District - Dantewada (C.G.) Pin Code - 494556 (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Dantewada (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.68/2023, 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. 2. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed against the applicant by the respondent and sought VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.02.03 10:51:53 +0530 2 maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month before the learned Family Court concerned. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 18.02.2022 under the Hindu Rites and Custom. Thereafter, the respondent was living with the applicant at her matrimonial house from 18.02.2022 till 04.05.2022. It is alleged that respondent was very rude and casual and used to argue with the petitioner and in-laws over petty issues and when someone tries to speak some sense, she used to argue even more. Thereafter, the respondent is living separately from the applicant at her parental house. 3. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the applicant. On 07.10.2023, the learned Family Court, Dantewada ordered monthly maintenance amount of Rs.12,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent and after adducing the evidence from the parties and documents submitted thereto, passed the final maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent (wife). 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. 4. 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, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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 vaishali