1 2026:CGHC:5578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 175 of 2024 Sunil Dewangan S/o Shri Girish Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Renu Giri, Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector 01, Raipur (Cg) ... Applicant versus 1 - Rani Dewangan W/o Shri Rahul Rajak Aged About 34 Years R/o Nayapara, Keju Mill Chowk, Durg (C.G.) 2 - Khushi Dewangan D/o Sunil Dewangan Aged About 7 Years Through Mother Rani Dewangan, R/o Nayapara Keju Mill Chowk, Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. G.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 600/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent No.1 got marriedo n 15.02.2015 at Raipur (C.G.) as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Out of their wedlock, a girl child i.e. respondent No.2 was born on RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 08.02.2016. It is alleged that the respondent after the marriage started living with the respondent. After one and half month of marriage the applicant started assaulting the respondent No.1 mentally and physically. 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 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. 10,000/- 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 No.1 works in a private school as a teacher and also works as a beautician, and thus, she is able to maintain herself and respondent No.2 as well. 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 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 600/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 10,000/- 3 per month to the respondents, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 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 no nay good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and 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