1 2026:CGHC:7378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1401 of 2024 Yogesh Patel S/o Rekharam Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bahanakadi, Post - Kurud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Binu Patel W/o Yogesh Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Through Kanhaiya Patel House No. 329, Ward No. 19, Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Manas Patel D/o Yogesh Patel Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Binu Patel, R/o Through Kanhaiya Patel House No. 329, Ward No. 19, Nardha, Tahsil Ahiwara, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.02.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the order dated 17.10.24 passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1138/2023, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that The respondents 昀椀led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as Criminal Case No.1138/2023, seeking grant of maintenance on the ground that the marriage of respondent No.1 with the applicant was solemnized on 22.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, and respondent No.2 was born out of the said wedlock on 09.06.2017. It was alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected respondent No.1 to assault and harassment and demanded money, due to which the respondents were compelled to reside separately at the parental house of respondent No.1. The applicant 昀椀led his reply before the learned Family Court denying the allegations and contending that the respondents were unwilling to reside with the applicant’s parents and had therefore instituted the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court, by order dated 17.10.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 had lodged a report against the applicant and his family members at Police Station Hasaud, and also ignored the fact that the applicant had submitted applications before the Kosariya Marar Community on 03.06.2017 and 3 31.03.2018, which were refused by respondent No.1. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is still willing to live happily with respondent No.1, but she herself left the matrimonial house without any justi昀椀able reason and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. It is also contended that the applicant is a poor rustic villager with no permanent source of income and survives only on labour work, yet the learned Family Court disbelieved his evidence and passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents. Additionally, due to the family dispute, a village meeting was held on 01.04.2018 at Village Paragaon, Aarang, wherein there was mutual consent to live separately, however, the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate this material fact and passed an order which is illegal, perverse, and bad in the eyes of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 in Criminal Case No.1138/2023. The learned Family Court has properly considered the fact that the marriage between respondent No.1 and the applicant was solemnized on 22.04.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and that respondent No.2 was born out of the said wedlock on 09.06.2017. The allegations of assault, harassment, and demand of money, which compelled the respondents to reside separately at the parental house of respondent No.1, were also duly 4 taken into account. Upon evaluating the defence taken by the applicant and the overall circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court justly and reasonably awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, which cannot be said to be excessive or illegal. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certi昀椀ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan