1 2026:CGHC:5369 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 468 of 2024 Hemkumar Sen Son Of Patiram Sen Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Rani Durgawti Ward (Ward No. 13), Palari, Police Station Palari, Police Station Palari, District - Balodabar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Vandana Sen Wife Of Shri Hemkumar Sen Aged About 31 Years Daughter Of Krishna Kumar Sen, Permanent Address - Near Sharda Mandir, Ayodhya Nagar, Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. At Present Resident Of C/o. Block Colony, Behind Arang Janpad, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal MCC No. 124/2022, 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. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the respondent against the applicant claiming maintenance of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Rs. 30,000/-. It was pleaded in the application by the respondent that the husband is having the income of Rs. 56,000/- beside ancestral property of 1.5 acres also available and is earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. 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 of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the respondent. 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. 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, and she is not liable for maintenance as per provision contained under Section 125(4) of CrPC. 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. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 3 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 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 Rajshekhar