1 2026:CGHC:14405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 23 of 2024 Harishankar Ram S/o Buthu Ram Aged About 30 Years Caste Cheek, R/o Village Icholi, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur, Presently Residing At Village And Police Station Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Bunkar W/o Shri Harishankar Ram Aged About 26 Years Caste Cheek R/o Village Sakardih, Police Outpost Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Minor Dayashankar Ram S/o Shri Harishankar Ram Aged About 9 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Namely, Smt. Sunita Bunkar, Caste Cheek R/o Village Sakardih, Police Outpost Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.) 3 - Minor Kumari Riya Bunkar D/o Shri Harishankar Ram Aged About 7 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Namely, Smt. Sunita Bunkar, Caste Cheek R/o Village Sakardih, Police Outpost Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Smriti Ekka, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard Ms. Smriti Ekka, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in MJC No. 78/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent No.1 herein preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. inter alia on the ground that the marriage between applicant and respondent No.1 solemnized in the year 2012 according to their rites and customs. Out of their wedlock respondent No. 2 on 03.10.2013 and non- applicant No. 3 on 14.02.2017 were born. It was alleged that the applicant herein used to assault respondent No. 1 after consuming liquor. The respondent No. 1 objected when the applicant brought another lady with him and he ousted non- applicant No. 1 from the house. It was also alleged that thereafter he never came to bring her back. In this regard, non- applicant No. 1 made a complaint before Police Outpost-Manora. It was also alleged that the applicant herein is posted as a peon in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and is drawing Rs. 26,000/- per month as salary. It was further stated that Non- applicant No. 1 has no source of income and the applicant herein is not maintaining her therefore, she claimed maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 4,000/- each for non- applicants No. 2 and 3, a total of Rs. 14,000/- from the applicant. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondents. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1. The impugned order 3 passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. 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 No.1 had an extra marital affair and when the applicant restrained her from talking to the other person she left the matrimonial house. 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 10.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in MJC No. 78/2023, and she 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 learned Family Court, it transpires that 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 4 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar