1 CGHC010141642025 2026:CGHC:36253 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.486 of 2025 Aayush Shukla S/o Shri Bhupendra Kumar Shukla Aged About 32 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Durgyani Mandir Gali, Near Dronacharya School, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Yogita Shukla W/o Shri Aayush Kumar Shukla Aged About 34 Years Residents Of House No.503, Radhika Palace Apartments, 5th Floor, Shanti Nagar, Street No.9, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Omi @ Aradhya Shukla S/o Shri Aayush Shukla Aged About 10 Years Minor Represented Through His Mother Smt. Yogita Shukla, Residents Of House No.503, Radhika Palace Apartments, 5th Floor, Shanti Nagar, Street No.9, Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.538/2022, whereby the learned Family RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife) got married on 26.11.2010 at Arya Samaj, Bilaspur. Thereafter, they married with the consent of their respective parents on 17.06.2011. The wife gave birth to their only son (respondent no.2) on 25.05.2012. It was alleged by the respondent No.1 in application under Section 125 CrPC before the trial court that, after marriage when she went to her matrimonial home she was harassed by the in-laws for not bringing any dowry in the marriage. She stated that her husband never used to support her and that he left her at her mother's home after the birth of their child. She further stated that she does not have any means of earning and due to which the education of their only child is getting affected. She alleged that the petitioner took a loan on documents belonging to her, for purchasing the flat and got it registered in his own name. She further alleged that she is verbally abused by the petitioner over telephonic calls, who does not provides any means for their survival. Hence, she prayed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 35, 000/- per month to be paid by petitioner from the learned Family Court. 4. 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 3 the respondent for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance to the tune of total Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents. 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 has left the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason and with her own free will, thus, as per the provision contained in Section 125(4) of CrPC, she is not entitled to be granted maintenance. 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 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.538/2022, 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondents, 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 4 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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