1 2025:CGHC:41304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 640 of 2024 Mamta D/o Shri Jwala Prasad Aged About 22 Years (Grass Widow / Parityakta) R/o Lahri Dafai, Chirmiri, Thana Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya Now District Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.), Pin 497449 ... Applicant versus 1 - Jwala Prasad S/o Late Shri Firangi Aged About 56 Years Caste Satnami, Posted As A Loader D.C. Katkona Colliery, R/o Near The Tulshi Chowk, Katkona Colliery, Thana Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Now District Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur Chhattisgarh Pin 497335 2 - Sakun D/o Shri Jwala Prasad Aged About 15 Years Through The Natural Guardian Father R/o Lahri Dafai, Chirmiri, Thana Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya, Now District Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) Pin 497449 3 - Sunil S/o Shri Jwala Prasad Aged About 17 Years Through The Natural Guadian Father R/o Lahri Dafai, Chirmiri, Thana Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya, Now District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh Pin 497449 ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 private respondents. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) now District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 12/2013, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant and respondents No.2 and 3, and ordered the respondent No.1 that he has to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant together with the respondents No.2 and 3, as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent No.1 and applicant's mother Kesar Bai was the natural and legal father and mother of the applicant and also of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. The applicant have her real one sister and one brother. On the year 2001 mother of the applicant died, thereafter respondent No. 01 has kept one Shailbai as a Kept-Wife. Respondent No.1 is the permanent employee of SECL Katkona Colliery Baikunthpur and he posted as a Loader D.C. The respondent No.1 was getting Rs.50,000/- per month from his salary in the year 2013. The present applicant alongwith her brother and sister was filed application under Section 125 CrPC on dated 15/01/2013 but the Learned Family Court partly allowed by the impugned order dated 04/12/2013 passed by the Family Court concerned. The present revision is filled pertaining to under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant No.1 along with her sister and brother respondent No.2 and 3 against respondent No.1, which was allowed to pay Rs.1000/- per month to the present applicant together with the respondent No.2 sister and respondent No.3 brother, total 03 thousand. During pendency of the Family Court cases about the maintenance the present applicant 3 marriage was solemnized one with Anandram who lived only some months and thereafter left due to dispute/cruelty. Thereafter applicant living with brother and sister with help of Nana & Nani. During this incident respondent No.1 filed application under Section 127 CrPC on dated 02/03/2020, on the ground of marriage but the Learned Family Court rejected by order 23/06/2018. The applicant filed one application under Section 127 CrPC on dated 02/03/2020 on the ground of the payment of her father was increased and he was getting Rs.90,000/- per month. It is further important to submit that at present the father of the applicant retired on dated 30/03/2024. He got the huge amount Rs.6000000/- from the SECL and pension. But the respondent No.1 did not give any amount to the applicant and also did not give to the respondent No. 2 and respondent No.3. Present applicant and Sakun sent one legal notice dated 04/01/2024. The respondent No.1 not replied the above mentioned notice. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is further submitted that at present the father of the applicant respondent No.1 retired from the service on dated 30/03/2024 and he got the huge amount Rs. 60,00,000/- from the SECL and pension. But the respondent No.1 did not give any amount to the present applicant and also not given to the Respondents No.2 and 3. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 4 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar