1 2025:CGHC:32611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 397 of 2022 1 - Smt. Deepa Singh W/o Shri Abhishek Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 694 R-11, Rama Valley Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prabhav Singh S/o Deepa Singh And Abhishek Singh, Aged About 7 Years Since Minor Through His Mother , Smt. Deepa Singh, W/o Shri Abhiskek Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 694, R-11, Rama Valley, Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Abhishek Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 18, Raidas Ward, Near Mission Chowk, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 497001 ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 03.03.2022 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No. 949/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Bilaspur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants moved an application under section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance, and the applicant No.1 and the respondent wre married in persence of the Family members of both the parties. The applicant No. 01 and respondent had one child out of the wedlock named Prabhav Singh (applicant No.2) on 05.04.2014. The parties at first had Court marriage and then on 12.12.2008 the marriage of the applicant No.1 and respondent took place as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. After the marriage the family of the respondent started to harass and demand dowry from the applicant No.1 and on being refused also abused the applicant No.1. When the applicant wanted to continued her studies the respondent and his family objected. In 2011 the applicant No.1 came to know that the respondent is having extra marital affair after which she confronted the respondent after which she was against harassed and abused. The respondent has also mortgaged all the jewellery and ornaments of the applicant No.1. 4. The respondent has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. The learned Family Court found that the applicant No.1 has not proved her case as she was living separately without any sufficient reason and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court even after giving a finding that the applicant No.1 ears only Rs. 15,000/- per month and the applicant No.2 is dependent on applicant No.1, has erroneously given the finding that the applicant No.1 is not entitled for grant of maintenance. Therefore, the order of the Family Court 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 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 a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar