1 CGHC010067102025 2026:CGHC:34574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 249 of 2025 Ballu Choudhary S/o Suman Choudhary Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Nevra, P.S. And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sampati @ Soni W/o Ballu Choudhary Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nevra, P.S. And Tehsil Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) Present R/o Village Maheshpur, P.S. Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 193/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly 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. 2,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance against the applicant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent’s marriage was solemnized with the applicant in Hindu Custom on 19.04.2018 and after the marriage they were living their parental house. After few days of the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 marriage the respondent alleged that the husband are creating cruelty and demand of Car and thereafter, further alleged by the respondent that her husband and threw her from his house, therefore, the respondent is living separately from the house of the applicant and living in her parental home. It is further alleged that the applicant has done second marriage and he earned Rs. 30,000/- and doing an agricultural work. 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, partly 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. 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, and thus, as per the provision contained under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, 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. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 3 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 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