Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3733 (CHH)

RAJESH KUMAR NETAM v. SMT. HEMESHWARI NAG

CRR/469/2026 · 2026-04-06

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:15831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 469 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar Netam S/o Phulsingh Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Khaspara, Village Anantpur Post - Bijapur, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Hemeshwari Nag W/o Rajesh Kumar Netam, D/o Layakram Netam Aged About 24 Years At Present R/o Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur, Permanent Address - Village Rampal, Chhindawada P.S. Darbha, District – Bastar Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 47/2024, 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent married on 08.12.2022, after a cordial relationship and the applicant registered the marriage to include name of the respondent in his service book. It was arranged, but after marriage the applicant never took the respondent to RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 his house and after about a month of marriage applicant started abusing and beating the respondent on every small issue, thereafter, the respondent left the applicant’s house in February, 2024, then the respondent went to her in-laws house, where she was quarreled with them and beaten up and was driven out of the house, about this incident she has also made a complaint before the concerned Police Station. The applicant is a constable in the army and gets a selary of Rs. 60,000/- per month. Ultimately, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC and requested the applicant to provide her with monthly maintenance amount. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the applicant. 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. 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 not the legally married wife of the applicant and she has not prepared any documents related to the marriage certificated and it is also mentioned that on 20.06.2023 he was on his Army duty and said stamp paper executed on the same date. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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