1 2025:CGHC:28315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 501 of 2023 1 - Smt. Pooja Banjare W/o Suresh Banjare, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda -Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vanash Banjare, S/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Banjare, R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda -Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chirag Banjare S/o Suresh Banjare Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Pooja Banjare, R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda -Newra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - Lachchhandas Banjare S/o Late Budharu Banjare, Aged About 55 Years (Father In Law) R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda-Newra, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Jamuna Banjare, W/o Lachchhandas Aged About 48 Years (Mother In Law) R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda-Newra, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mukesh Banjare, S/o Lachchhandas Banjare, Aged About 30 Years (Brother In Law) R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda-Newra, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sunil Banjare, S/o Lachchhandas Banjare, Aged About 22 Years (Brother In Law) R/o Village Sararidih, Post Tohta, P.S. Tilda-Newra, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.04.2023 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 643/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had filed an application for seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month from respondents that the applicant and Suresh Banjare had solemnized marriage according to Hindu Rites and Rituals custom on 30.04.2014 and on their wedlock, applicants No. 2 and 3 born. The applicants have claimed in brief is that after marriage, the applicant No. 1 was peacefully happily residing with her husband Suresh Banjare along with her minor children at her matrimonial house and her husband Suresh Banjare died on 11.07.2022 and thereafter, the respondents were harassed and tortured with the applicant No. 1 physically and mentally without any reason, and they have got out to the applicants from her matrimonial house. The applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the Suresh Banjare and she has no any source of income for livelihood and not take care of the applicant No. 2 and 3 and respondents can be managed to maintenance amount for livelihood of the applicants and hence the applicant has filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month against the respondent. The non-applicants have filed their reply and denied the averment pleading in the application filed by the applicant. The learned Family Court after recording evidence and pleading of parties vide impugned order dated 21.04.2023 without considering the fact and material on record, dismissed the application filed by the applicants. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned 3 order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The impugned order dated passed by the learned Family Court is completely illegal, because the applicant No. 1 is legally real member of respondent’s family and as per Hindu Marriage Act, the applicants are fully entitled for granting maintenance amount, despite of that, the learned Family Court rejected application for maintenance which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The applicant has no means and has no any source of income to survive and applicant No. 1 is having so much difficulties to manage the maintenance to take care of minor children applicants No. 2 and 3 and also livelihood. Therefore, the order of the Family is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 643/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 as well as original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar