1 2026:CGHC:6303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 7 of 2026 Neeraj Kumar S/o Shri Ganpatram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Subiya Mudpar, Post Bagodar, Tehsil And Distt. North Bastar Kanker, C.G., Office Address C/o Shriman Saket Bhardwarj Commonding Officer, 34, Rastriya Raifal (R.R.), C/o 56 A.P.O. Sipahi Neeraj Kumar Mt Department, A.S.C. Shrinagar (Kashmir), Army No. 14892198 Y/a-3. ... Applicant versus Smt. Hempushpa W/o Neeraj Kumar At Present R/o Village Salhe, Doundi, Tahsil Doundi, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, on IA No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 26 days for filing the instant revision. 2. On due course, IA No. 01/2026 is allowed, and the delay for 26 days for filing the instant revision, is condoned. 3. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 274/2022, 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. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 4. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court Balod and claiming total maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the applicant. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.07.2020 as per Hindu Customs and Rituals. It is stated in the application that the husband is working in the Army and he resides in the place of posting an he come to visit his home by taking four months leave, at the time, the wife was residing along with the parents of husband whereas the father of husband keep a wrong intention against the wife and at one occasion, he even tried to touch the wife with wrong intention, but her husband did not stated anything to his father and always tried to convince the wife not to speak anything against his parents and she further stated that her husband also started beating and abusing her, cause of which she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and she is presently residing in her father’s house, whereas the husband is not giving maintenance, cause of which she filed the application claiming maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 5. 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. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and 3 evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent without any sufficient reason has left the house of the applicant, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance as per provision contained in Section 125(4) of CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set- aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar