1 2026:CGHC:25367 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 747 of 2026 Amar Prajapati S/o Ramesh Chakardhari Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Nimdha Tahsil- Marwahi District- Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus Kushalya Chakardhari W/o Amar Prajapati Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Nimdha Tahsil- Marwahi District- Gaurella- Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Ward No-14, Bharrapara Pendra District- Gaurella-Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh, ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Cr.A. No. 48/2024, whereby the learned appellate Court, by setting aside the order of the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendra-Road, District – Bilaspur dated 11.09.2024, allowed the appeal and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 07.02.2018 as per the Hindu Customs, and since then the respondent resides at Village Nimdha. It is alleged that after one week of marriage the applicant went to Raipur for his RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 work and left the respondent at the village saying that he married for support and need of mother and father who were engaged in the preparation of liquor. The respondent further alleged that she was subjected to battery by the mother and father-in-law on the ground that respondent came withy less dowry. It is further alleged that the applicant undertake before Police that he would not commit the same in future but afterwards the applicant ran away to her parent’s house. The applicant was working as computer operator and earn 35-40 thousand and family is having 14-15 acres of land, hence he is sufficient means of source of income, thus, the respondent would be awarded 10,000/- per month maintenance. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the applicant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendra-Road, found that the respondent was leaving separately without any sufficient reason and hence the claim of maintenance was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2024, and against the said order the respondent filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court, and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and ordered the applicant that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 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, therefore, she is not entitled to be granted maintenance as per Section 3 145(4) of the BNSS. 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 applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court as well as the trial 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 appellate Court has passed the impugned order by setting aside the order of the learned learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pendra-Road, District – Bilaspur dated 11.09.2024, and has granted maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same warranting 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar