1 2026:CGHC:5769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1259 of 2024 Amit Rajdev S/o Shri Mahesh Rajdev, Aged About 39 Years R/o Dantare Ki Nariya, Gali No. 2, P.S. - Kotwali, Tehsil And District - Datiya, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus Mehak Rajdev W/o Amit Rajdev Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Kalyandas Mankani, Presently R/o - 1/126, Sedar Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No. 26/2024, 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the parties here was solemnized on 07.11.2016 at Datiya (M.P.) as per the Hindu Rites and rituals. After the marriage the respondent/wife was residing with the petitioner in the matrimonial home at Datiya (M.P.). That a daughter RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 (Girisha) was born out of the wedlock, who is presently 6 years old, and residing with the petitioner. The respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) for grant of maintenance, alleging therein that the petitioner had demanded dowry, and used to drink alcohol, and during her pregnancy he has sexually abused her and ill-treated her. Respondent has further contented that she has no source income and the petitioner is not maintaining her. 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. 8,000/- 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 residing separately since year 2021, and since then she has maintained herself and has already source of income, therefore it was not a fit case to granted maintenance to her. 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