1 CGHC010139082025 2026:CGHC:37120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 528 of 2025 Pritam Sonkhare S/o Shri Dwarka Sonkhare Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 08 Hasdeo Dafai New Ledri, Thana- Jhagrakhand, Tehsil- Manendragarh, Distt- M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anuradha Sonkhare W/o Pritam Sonkhare Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Behind New Saloon, Near Eidgah, Manendragarh, Thana And Tehsil- Manendragarh, Distt- M.C.B.(C.G.) 2 - Anupreet Sonkhare S/o Pritam Sonkhare Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Respondent No. 1 Mother Anuradha Sonkhare, R/o Ward No. 5, Behind New Saloon, Near Eidgah, Manendragarh, Thana And Tehsil- Manendragarh, Distt- M.C.B.(C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. Ms. Surbhi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, is present. 2. Heard on IA No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay for filing the present revision. 3. On due consideration, IA No. 02/2025 is allowed, and the delay is condoned. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 4. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 260/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, and not for respondent No.2. 5. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1/Wife earlier filed an application under section 125 CrPC before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Korea, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month. As per respondent No.1/Wife, the marriage of applicant and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 13.02.3007 as per Hindu rituals and customs and as a result of their marriage they were blessed with 2 sons, Anupreet Sonkhare (respondent No.2) and Aditya Raj Sonkhare. After 6-7 months of their marriage, the applicant and his family member started to harass the respondent No.1 by making a demand to give Rs. 5,000/- to construct a washroom which was fulfilled. Later on, they again made a demand of Rs. 20,000/- to open a Poultry Farm which was again fulfilled by the applicant. husband was un-employed and has a habit to consume alcohol and under its influence used to abuse and beat the respondent No.1/Wife. By this reason of being subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty the respondent No.1/Wife made complaints before the local Police Station explaining the situation. On multiple occasions, the applicant and respondent No.1 made attempts to make their marriage life work and establish a cordial relationship which did not bear any 3 fruit. On one occasion, during respondent No.1 was living with her family, the elder brother and sister of applicant asked the respondent No.1 to give Rs 50,000/- to the applicant so that he can buy an Auto- rickshaw and earn to take better care of his family. Later, on 05.08.2023 the respondent No.1 took the decision to leave her matrimonial home and started living alone. 6. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, and not for respondent No.2, as the respondent No.2 was stated to be residing with the applicant. Hence, this revision. 7. 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/husband is working as a contractual guard under the Nagar Panchayat, New Ledri and just earning a meager amount of Rs. 8,500/- which is hardly enough for the survival for the petitioner and his family. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, and 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 which requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 11. 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