1 2026:CGHC:3559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 122 of 2026 Naresh Chandel S/o Shri Rajeshwar Ram Chandel Aged About 42 Years R/o Vill- Bajrangpara, Road No. 17-A, House No. 94, Kohka, Bhilai, Tah And Dist. Durg C.G., Presently R/o C/o Bhupendra Chandel Kalpvihar, Sector- 03, Shivanand Nagar, Ward No. 17, House No. 3077, Near Ajay Kirana Store, Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rameshwari Chandel W/o Naresh Chandel Aged About 39 Years R/o Vill- Bajrangpara, Road No. 17-A, House No. 94, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S.- Supela, Tah And Dist. Durg C.G., 2 - Adityaraj Chandel S/o Naresh Chandel Aged About 14 Years Minor Through Mother Natural Guardian Smt. Rameshwari Chandel, R/o Vill- Bajrangpara, Road No. 17-A, House No. 94, Kohka, Bhilai, P.S.- Supela, Tah And Dist. Durg C.G., ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshit Singh Hora, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MCRC No. 708/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife took place on 24.04.2009 with the consent of both the families according to Hindu rituals and customs at Dist. Durg (C.G.), thereafter they started residing together and out of their wedlock the respondent No. 02/son was born on 16.09.2011. the respondent No.1/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance stating that the family members and relatives of the respondent No. 01/wife, gave dowry and gifts as per their status which was taken by the applicant and his family members and kept in their custody, she further stated that till 02 years of marriage everything was good, but after that the applicant and his family members used to taunt the respondent No. 01/wife about the dowry and said that they have received less dowry and if they would have marry elsewhere then they would have got 05- 10 Lakhs, that the applicant used to come home at night in drunken state and used filthy language against the respondent No. 01 and also used to torture and assault her, that the applicant used to torture her for the demand of Rs. 05 Lakhs from the family members of the respondent No. 01 and took her to her maternal home for the same, then the father of the respondent No. 01 gave a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- and then they took her to the matrimonial house, after sometime the behavior of the applicant and his family members changed again and they again started to torture her, then the respondent No. 01 made a written complaint before the President of Lodhi Shatriya Samaj, Bajrang Para on 08.10.2017 and thereafter on 12.10.2017 she made written complaint before Mahila Thana, Bhilai Nagar and thereafter she filed an application under Section 09 of Hindu 3 Marriage Act in which both the parties came into compromise with mutual understanding, and the applicant promised to not repeat this again and then the respondent No. 01 returned back to the matrimonial house. 4. She further stated that, after the birth of his son, she got pregnant 03 times and the third time the gender was girl which was aborted by the applicant and his family members without the will of the respondent No. 01. That on 14.11.2020 the applicant assaulted her with stick, due to which she received injuries at both her hands and the applicant also used filthy language and threatened to kill her, thereafter she made a complaint before the P.S. Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Chowki, on 15.11.2020 which is registered as 797/2020 under Section 294, 323, 506 Part II of I.P.C., she further stated that the applicant is having an extra marital affair with one Renu Danje and that on 12.02.2021 Renu Danje made a written notice before the P.S. Utayi stating that she is currently staying with her boyfriend namely Naresh Chandel, that on 23.02.2021 the respondent No. 02 made a written complaint before the Mahila Thana, Bhilai Nagar, in which the counseling was held between both the parties and the applicant accepted that he is staying with Renu Danje and he cannot leave and will give maintenance to the respondent No. 01. That on 14.06.2021 she lodged the F.I.R. before Mahila Thana against the applicant and his family members under Section 498A, 34 of I.P.C. which is registered as Crime No. 48/2021. 5. The respondent No.1/wife further submitted that the father of the applicant owns a 02 storey building at Bajrang Para, Dist.- Durg (C.G.) in which she is living with her son, and her father-in-law threatens her 4 to throw her out of the house, that the respondent No. 01 is not having any source of income and is dependant on the applicant, and her son is studying in English Medium School, Bhilai for which she needs maintenance for his education and medical expenses, she stated that the applicant is working at Balaji Dream City Somni Rajnandgaon and earns Rs. 50,000/- per month and therefore the respondents are entitled to get Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance. 6. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 12,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 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. 7. 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 voluntarily residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason, thus, as per Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not liable to be granted any maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 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 warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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