1 2026:CGHC:5812 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1098 of 2024 Pankaj Trivedi S/o Ramkumar Trivedi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kona P.S. Jarhagaon Tahsil and District- Mungeli, C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Padma Trivedi W/o Pankaj Trivedi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Kona P.S. Jarhagaon At Present Village- Navrangpur P.S. Chilfi Tahsil- Lormi District Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 435/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and directed the applicant/husband that he has to pay amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the case filed before the Trial Court is that the applicant and the respondent are legally married husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2020 at Village Navrangpur, District Mungeli. It was alleged before the learned Family Court that after a few PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.04 12:40:33 +0530 2 months of marriage, the relationship between the applicant and the respondent became strained. The applicant and his family members allegedly subjected the respondent to cruelty, abused her using filthy language, and committed physical assault (marpit) in connection with a demand for dowry. It was further alleged that on 10.07.2020 (wrongly mentioned as 10.07.2022), the respondent was forcibly thrown out of her matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. Left with no other option, the respondent sought legal recourse. It was further alleged that the applicant is engaged in Jajmani (Purohit) work and also earns a sufficient income from agricultural activities. Ultimately, on 28.06.2023, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. 3. Upon service of notice, the present applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed a detailed reply denying all the allegations made against him. The applicant contended that after the marriage, the respondent refused to accept the marital relationship and declined cohabitation, including having a child. He further denied the allegations regarding his income, stating that they are false and incorrect. On the contrary, he asserted that the respondent herself is engaged in teaching work and earns a sufficient income therefrom. After hearing both parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary 3 to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Family Court has committed a gross error of law in awarding maintenance to the respondent despite the fact that she refused to reside with or accompany the applicant without sufficient cause. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted against the applicant. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent was motivated by ulterior intent. The learned Family Court, while deciding the maintenance application, did not consider the material fact that after the marriage, the respondent refused to accept the marital relationship and declined cohabitation, including having a child. The applicant had submitted written arguments containing unrebutted and uncontroverted facts, which ought to have been treated as reliable material. However, the learned Family Court grossly ignored the same while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court 4 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 of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti