1 2026:CGHC:5770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1252 of 2024 Durgesh Kumar Ghritlehre S/o Ram Kumar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Amora Gopalpur Police Station Mulmula Tehsil Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Jyoti Ghritlehre W/o Durgesh Kumar Ghritlehre Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 14 Hiragir Dafai Haldibadi Chirmiri Police Station Chirmiri District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Advik Ghritlehre S/o Durgesh Kumar Ghritlehre Aged About 1 Years Through Legal Representative Mother Smt. Jyoti Ghritlahre, R/o Ward No. 14 Hiragir Dafai Haldibadi Chirmiri Police Station Chirmiri District - Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in MCC No. 159/2023, 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. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant namely Durhesh Kumar Ghritlehre who is also known as Durgesh Kumar Lehre is the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondent No.2. In this case the respondent No.2 is legally represented by the respondent No.1 who is the mother of her. The respondents have filed the application under section 125 of CrPC before the Learned Court, against the applicant alleging that the applicant and respondent got married on 11- 05-2021 as per the Hindu Rituals and Customs. From their wedlock applicant No.2 was born. She alleged that Everything was going quite good for some times but later on things got worse as the applicant started assaulting the respondent No.1 in the name of dowry. She further alleged that the applicant use to consume alcohol and beat use to beat her. She made several complaints before the police station but the behavior of the applicant never changed. On 26-04-2023, the applicant thrown the respondents out of his house and since then the respondents are residing in her maternal house. The respondent No.1 on her application has stated that the applicant is employed and earns 35,000-40,000 per month, she also stated that the applicant owns 15 acres of land from which he earns 4-5 lakhs Yearly and hence she demanded monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000 (10,000 to each respondent) from the applicant. 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 3 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 applicant is only earning a monthly income of Rs. 12,700/- from his employment and sometimes he earns few more from his over time, but this fact could not be considered by the learned Family Court. 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 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in MCC No. 159/2023, 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, 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 4 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