1 CGHC010009692025 2026:CGHC:32991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 39 of 2025 Ankit Kumar Sahu S/o Ramkaran Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur Police Station Surajpur Tahsil Ramanujnagar District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Pooja Sahu W/o Ankit Kumar Sahu D/o Vijay Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Anokala Post Dumariya Police Station Patna District - Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Court – Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 145/2023, 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. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance mentioning in it that her marriage was solemnized along with the applicant/husband in the month of April, 2020 as per the caste, custom prevailing in the Hindu RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Caste and she resided in the house of husband and soon after two months of marriage, the applicant ill-treated the wife and used to harass her mentally and physically. It is further alleged that in the month of July-2021 at about 8.00 PM, the applicant after consuming the liquor came to house and assaulted the wife with hand and fist and dragged her towards the house of her father and mother and asked the wife not to come in the house. In the year 2022, the husband moved an application for seeking divorce from his wife and the husband is not taking care of his wife and wife has no source of income, she sought maintenance from the husband for sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as it has been mentioned by the wife and the husband is the owner of the mobile shop and he used to earn sum of Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- per month and the father of the applicant is having agricultural land and they used to earn of Rs.5 lakhs from the said land. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, 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. 4,000/- 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, and thus, as per the provision contained under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, 3 she is not entitled to be granted any maintenance from the applicant. 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 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Court – Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 145/2023, 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. 4,000/- per month to the respondent, 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 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 warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. 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