1 2025:CGHC:28628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 382 of 2019 1 - Smt. Ashwani Bai W/o Deepak Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Ward No.12, Contractor Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address- Village- Kohkaboda, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Ku. Pallavi D/o Deepak Verma Aged About 2 Years Represented Through Guardian And Patron Mother Smt. Ashwani Bai W/o Deepak Verma, R/o Village- Ward No.12, Contractor Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Presently Address- Village- Kohkaboda, Police Station And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Deepak Verma S/o Shyamlal Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Ward No.12, Contractor Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Family Link Court, Rajnandgaon at Khairagarh (C.G.) in MJC No.75/2017, whereby AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 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 and respondent were married in the year 2013 at village Kohkabod, thereafter she went to her matrimonial house at Bhilai. The applicant No. 1 after her marriage was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the family members of the respondent as the applicant No. 1 was unable to bring the desired amount of dowry from her home at the time of marriage, because of which, the applicant No. 1 was forced to leave her matrimonial house and used to reside separately with her husband i.e. the respondent and after sometime the applicant No.1 gave birth to the applicant No. 2. After the birth of the applicant No. 2, the respondent used to harass her and used to tell her that he doesn't like her anymore. It has further been contended by the applicant No. 1 that the respondent had an affair with one Pooja Sahu and the respondent had married her and due to said reason, the applicant No. 1 was forced to leave the house. On December 2017, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- from the respondent. The learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence available on record in para 13 of the order has given finding that the Applicant no. 1 is living separately without any 3 sufficient cause therefore not entitled for any maintenance amount and further in para 15 only granted maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant No. 2 which is a meager amount. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and perverse to the facts on records. The learned Family Court committed illegality by not properly appreciating the evidence of the applicant herself whereby, it is clear that the respondent had an affair with one Pooja Sahu due to which the respondent had forced the applicant No.1 to leave their house. Further, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant No. 1 was subjected to cruelty by the family members of the respondent and has during the counseling held on 21/11/2017, has clearly refused to take back the applicants with him. The maintenance amount which is granted to the applicant No.2 is on a very lower side looking to the present times. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of 4 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 without any sufficient cause, hence she is not entitle for grant of maintenance but applicant No.2, who is the minor daughter of respondent, 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. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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