1 2025:CGHC:28629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 373 of 2019 1 - Ajija @ Rubi W/o Mohd. Faisal Aged About 30 Years Caste Momin, R/o Dabripara, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Faiz S/o Mohd. Faisal Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Ajija @ Rubi, W/o Mohd. Faisal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dabripara, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Mohd. Faisal S/o Abu Bakar Aged About 40 Years Caste Momin, R/o Mangal Bhawan, Behind Nuri Masjid, Kohka, Police Station Supela District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.03/2013, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants and granted maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to applicant No.2, but no maintenance has been passed in favour of applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 herein is the wife of the respondent herein, the applicants filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance amount stating that the applicant No. 1 was solemnized marriage with the respondent according to Hindu Custom prior to about 8 years, and thereafter, out of their wedlock, one minor son respondent No. 2 was born. Further, it is stated by the applicant that the respondent always ill treated her and always assaulted her for demand of dowry and he also committed marpeet with the applicant No. 1 and the respondent has left the applicant No. 1 and his minor son applicant No. 2 from his house at matrimonial house without any reasons, in this regard, the applicant No. 1 made complaint to the concerned police station Baikunthpur and also filed an application under section Domestic protection of women from Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent. The respondent is working as worker at hotel Delhi Darbar and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month and obtains Rs. 2,000/- per month from rental house of Baikunthpur, Dabripara, and hence the applicants have filed an 3 application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned family Court for grant of maintenance amount of of Rs. 5000/- for applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- for applicant no. 2. The learned family Court after hearing the evidences of both the parties, has passed the order of maintenance amount of of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant No. 2 but no compensation has been granted in favour of the applicant No. 1, without looking to the fact and material available on record. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicants. The learned Family Court has failed to see that respondent without any sufficient reason left the applicants and also failed to appreciate that the respondent has not made effort to take back the applicants in her matrimonial house, which itself indicated that the respondent somehow wants to dissolve the marriage. Further, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there is marital relationship between the parties and out of their wedlock, one son child was born, which clearly proved that the applicant has never acted cruelty toward the her husband and she has followed all the obligation as legally wedded wife. Lastly, the learned Family Court has overlooked that the present applicants are not in a position to maintain themselves and respondent is a good position to maintain himself, hence the 4 learned Family Court ought to have granted maintenance in favour of the applicant No. 1 for their livelihood. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- to applicant No.2 only, observing that since applicant No.1 is staying without respondent of her own free will and is staying in her father and brother's house, in such situation she is not entitled to get maintenance under the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., but applicant No.2, who is the minor son of respondent, as per section-125 (b) of the CrPC, is legally entitled for maintenance. As such, the learned Family Court granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/-, only to the applicant No.2. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and 5 is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil