1 2026:CGHC:5350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 238 of 2024 Sanjay Pradhan Son Of Narad Pradhan Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Pachdhar, Police Station And Tahsil Sariya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. At Present - Sub Post Master, Head Post Office Pusore, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kshiti Pradhan Wife Of Sanjay Pradhan Aged About 27 Years Minor Through - Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kshiti Pradhan, Resident Of Village Gudu, Police Station Pusore, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Paridhi Pradhan Daughter Of Sanjay Pradhan Aged About 3 Years Resident Of Village Gudu, Police Station Pusore, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. F-171/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants has filed the application RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each (total 30000/- per month) from the applicant (husband) on the ground of that due to the mental cruelty committed by the applicant and his family members presently the non-applicants are residing in her parental home and cause of that she claimed maintenance from the applicant. 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 partly 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. 15,000/- 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 is living separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per the provision contained in Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not entitled for grant of payment. 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 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. F- 3 171/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 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 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. 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