1 2026:CGHC:14406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 395 of 2023 Shivkumar Lodhi S/o Mayaram @ Munim Lodhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Karesara, Tahsil And Police Station Thankhamharia, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Reena Lodhi W/o Shivkumar Lodhi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Karesara, Tahsil And Police Station Thankhamharia, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Samaikhurd, Post Office Bargada, Tahsil Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Harish Lodhi S/o Shivkumar Lodhi Aged About 8 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Reena Lodhi R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Karesara, Tahsil And Police Station Thankhamharia, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Samaikhurd, Post Office Bargada, Tahsil Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Kirti Lodhi D/o Shivkumar Lodhi Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Reena Lodhi R/o Village Hedaspur, Post Office Karesara, Tahsil And Police Station Thankhamharia, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Samaikhurd, Post Office Bargada, Tahsil Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Pratibha Sahu, learned counsel for the repsondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bemetara RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 (C.G.) in Cri. MJC No. 449/2022, 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 maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the respondents before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance from the applicant. Marriage was solemnized between the applicant and respondent No.1 in the year 2014 as per the Hindu Rites and Customs and the respondent No.2 and 3 are born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parental family members were given household articles and dowry according to their capacity. After marriage, the repsondent No.1 went to the hose of the applicant, where she was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry and on 25.11.2022, she was ousted from the matrimonial house, therefore, she along with her children are living in the parental house of respondent No.1. The applicant is holding agricultural land and have sufficient source of income, in spite of that, he is not giving single penny toward maintenance of the respondents, therefore they filed the application for grant of maintenance. 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. 3,500/- per month to the respondents. The impugned order passed 3 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 is voluntarily residing separately from the applicant. 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 09.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Cri. MJC No. 449/2022, 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 interference by this Court. 4 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