1 2026:CGHC:6299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 180 of 2026 Ajay Soni S/o Ram Bharosa Soni Aged About 37 Years Address- Shanti Nagar, Bhilai-3, Tehsil and Dist.- Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus Shweta Soni W/o Ajay Soni Aged About 30 Years Address- Quarter No. 7/b, Street No. 23, Sector No. 7, Bhilai, Tehsil And Dist.- Durg, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mohammed Rashid, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of dealy of 48 days in filing the instant revision. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 02/2026 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the criminal revision is finally heard. 3. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 362/2020, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.05 12:13:44 +0530 2 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the applicant per month. 4. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 26/06/2012 (wrongly mentioned as 26/02/2012 in the impugned order) as per Hindu rites and customs at Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), without any demand. After about two months of marriage, on 24/08/2012, the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home and went to reside at her parental house. Since then, the respondent has not returned to the matrimonial home despite the applicant’s willingness to resume cohabitation. Notwithstanding the respondent’s departure from the matrimonial home, the parties remained in telephonic and mobile communication with each other till the month of February 2020. In the month of May 2020, the respondent instituted proceedings against the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court. The applicant clearly admitted the marital relationship and categorically expressed his readiness and willingness to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home and to discharge all matrimonial obligations. The interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the respondent, and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the maintenance application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent. The applicant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent, has challenged the same before this Hon’ble 3 Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the admitted facts of the respondent and the evidence on record regarding the absence of any sufficient cause for the respondent to leave the matrimonial home of the applicant. The learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence, passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance, which is contrary to law. There are material contradictions in the statements regarding the alleged community meeting. In paragraph 6 of her statement, the respondent claimed that a community meeting was organized to resolve the dispute, wherein her mama, uncle, and fufa Rajendra Soni were present. However, in paragraph 3 of the statement of the respondent’s mother, Sunita Soni, it was stated that she herself, her brother Ramesh Chand Soni, Mahesh Chand Soni (the respondent’s uncle), and others were present at the said meeting. Further, in paragraph 3 of the statement of the respondent’s mama, Ramesh Chand Soni, it was stated that he himself, his brother, the respondent’s uncle, and others were present. Notably, neither the respondent nor her mama Ramesh Chand Soni mentioned the presence of the respondent’s mother at the alleged community meeting. These material contradictions cast serious doubt on the occurrence and credibility of the alleged community meeting itself. If a community meeting had in fact taken place, several community members and relatives would ordinarily have been present. It is wholly illogical that only the respondent’s mother and mama were examined as witnesses and no independent or community witnesses were produced. Their testimonies are interested, mutually contradictory, and completely uncorroborated. The impugned order is contrary to law, the facts on record, settled 4 principles of law, and judicial precedents, and therefore deserves to be set aside, quashed, or suitably modified in the interest of justice. 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 after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let the certified of the this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti