1 2025:CGHC:30237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 365 of 2019 1 - Smt. Sarita Saxena W/o Purushottam Saxena Aged About 26 Years R/o Sendri (Putekela), Police Station And Tahsil Baradwar, At Present R/o C/o Father Balram Khare, Caste Satnami, Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa C/o Manoj Ajgahle Shankar Vihar Colony, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Arohi Saxena D/o Purushottam Saxena Aged About 5 Years Revisioner No. 2, Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sarita Saxena, W/o Purushottam Saxena Caste Satnami, R/o R/o Sendri (Putekela), Police Station And Tahsil Baradwar, At Present R/o C/o Father Balram Khare, Caste Satnami, Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa C/o Manoj Ajgahle Shankar Vihar Colony, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Tulsi Saxena D/o Purushottam Saxena Aged About 2 Years Revisioner No. 3, Is Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt. Sarita Saxena, W/o Purushottam Saxena Caste Satnami, R/o R/o Sendri (Putekela), Police Station And Tahsil Baradwar, At Present R/o C/o Father Balram Khare, Caste Satnami, Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa C/o Manoj Ajgahle Shankar Vihar Colony, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Purushottam Saxena S/o Kariya Ram Saxena Aged About 30 Years R/o Sendri (Putekela), Police Station And Tahsil Baradwar, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 200/2017, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, dismissed the application RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants No. 2 and 3. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent, their marriage has been solemnized according to Hindu custom and according to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 12.06.2011 at the village Bamhanidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), and thereafter the applicant No. 1 living with the respondent/husband at his village Sendri and living happy marital life, thereafter out of the marriage they procreated two daughters, who are living with the applicant No.1/wife. The dispute arises between the parties, because the applicant No. 1 is become pregnant within a one and half month of the marriage, the respondent and his family is created doubt on the character of respondent No.1 and thereafter demanded dowry one motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-, thereafter, the village meeting has been held, but not able to resolve the dispute between the parties. On the one day on 27.06.2015 in night, the applicant No. 1 talking with her family member, all of sudden the respondent came there and used filthy language and also threatened to kill her and with this effect he also blow the Tangi to the neck of applicant No. 1, but fortunately the applicant No.1 saved herself, thereafter she left the house of respondent, thereafter, the applicant No. 3 was took birth, this is also discloses before the learned Family Court that the respondent without getting divorce from the first wife i.e. applicant No.1, solemnized the marriage with another lady namely Kiran daughter of Barsati Kurre resident of village Madiragudi, hence, the applicant No.1 filed an application for 3 maintenance for herself and minor daughters. 4. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicants and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants No. 2 and 3. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The applicant No.1/wife clearly stated in her deposition that the respondent committed cruelty upon her for the purpose of demand of dowry and also made comment that the applicant No.1 has given birth to female child and not male child, hence, the respondent is not happy and committed cruelty upon the applicant No.1, hence she is left the house, due to cruelty of the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 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 order of the Family Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the applicants’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned 4 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar