1 CGHC010173142025 2026:CGHC:36250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 567 of 2025 Reshamlal Maitri S/o Amrit Lal Maitri Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Raliya, Block, Tehsil And Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Office Address- Government Higher Secondary School, Bhadi, Block- Bilha, Tehsil- Bilha, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Ful Bai Maitri W/o Shri Reshamlal Maitri Aged About 40 Years R/o C.L.I.G.- 281, Aditya Nagar, Near Harsha Kirana Stores, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Itu Bhattacharya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 570/2021, 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent no. 1 are husband and wife, she has preferred an application under section 125 CRPC for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- from the applicant on 19.07.2021, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 20.05.1997 as per Hindu religious rights and ceremonies at Village - Thakur Pali, Tehsil Dabra, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. It was an RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 arranged marriage and both the parties according to their own free will, have happily solemnized the marriage. The Respondent/ Wife in her application has further stated that after one year of marriage the applicant and his relative after drinking use to mentally and physical harass her for dowry and children stating that she cannot deliver a child and use to assault her. It is further alleged that the applicant never uses to take her to hospital for treatment relating to child. The applicant regularly demanded children from her and threatened her to perform second marriage. In furtherance the applicant and respondent family members conducted a meeting and the applicant assured all not to physically assault respondent wife. It is alleged that the applicant asked respondent to ask her sister for surrogacy continuously demanding for children and when she refused, he again assaulted the respondent herein. That the respondent/ wife suggested to take steps for adoption but the applicant didn't agree. It is further alleged that one fine day the applicant brought one girl namely Shruti and told the respondent that he will marry her and have kids with her and threatened respondent not to told any about this otherwise she will face dire consequences. The application of Respondent / wife further states that the applicant performed marriage with the other girl and had two children. This fact was never known to any one in her family. That it is alleged, the applicant made application for correction in Rashan card and added the name of second wife to which the respondent resisted and raised voice to which the applicant assaulted. That on 27.06.2021 at night the applicant assaulted his respondent/ wife and stated that she is no more needed in his house and as a result respondent on 28.06.2021 went to her relative (Jijaji) house in Aditya Nagar, Durg and 3 since then she is residing in Durg. Therefore, filed application for grant of maintenance filed prayed that she should be given Rs. 25,000/- for her own maintenance, before the Learned Family Court at Durg. It is worthy to mention that after filling of application, notice was issued and the applicant herein marked his presence and filed his reply. 3. 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 4. 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 has herself left the house of the applicant and is not willing to go back and thereafter the applicant has duly made a complaint to the Police authorities in this regard. It is further submitted that the respondent forced the applicant to perform choodi pratha since 2013 and she jointly lived with the applicant, children and Shruti voluntarily and now she cannot take U-turn by raising fake and vague allegations against the applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and 4 supports the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 570/2021, 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 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 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