1 2025:CGHC:28617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 639 of 2019 1 - Smt. Ragani Anant W/o Shri Ravindra Nath Anant Aged About 26 Years R/o Chakabuda, P.S. Bankimongra, Tahsil- Katghora, Presently Resided At Lewayee, P.S. And Tahsil- Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Anael Anant D/o Shri Ravindra Nath Anant Aged About 1 Years Minor Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ragani Anant, W/o Shri Ravindra Nath Anant, Caste Satnami, R/o Chakabuda, P.S. Bankimongra, Tahsil- Katghora, Presently Resided At Lewayee, P.S. And Tahsil- Balauda, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ravindra Anant S/o Shri Ramlal Anant Aged About 27 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Chakabuda, P.S. Bankimongra, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. None present for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to modify the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the learned Family Court Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 132/2018 and grant / award for monthly maintenance in favour of applicants as prayed for in their application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No.1 with non- applicant was solemnized on 29.04.2016 under Hindu Rites, Customs and Traditions at village Lewayee and thereafter the applicant No.1 and Non-applicant lived peacefully at in law's house. In the marriage, the parent of applicant No.1 had gave Motorcycle, Refrigerator, Cooler, Almirah, Fan, Diwan, Sofa and other households with ornaments along with cash of Rs. 2,25,000/-. After marriage, the in- laws of applicant No.1 had taunted her with respect to non-bringing the car as dowry. On account of which the applicant No.1 was treated with cruelly as well mentally, physically etc. Out of their wedlock, the applicant No.2 female child was born. The in-laws of applicant No.1 on account of giving birth of female child had also gave physical / mental torture and thereafter, the applicants were shifted towards parental home on 03.03.2018. The parent of applicant No.1 had tried their level best to resolve the issues once for all but failed. The applicants are not having source of income to maintain themselves hence finally, they had filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month (In favour of applicant No.1) and Rs. 10,000/- per month (In favour of applicant No.2) before the learned Family Court. 3 4. The Non-applicant in his reply had denied the allegations levelled against him except factual matrix. He further categorically averred in his reply that he had tried to bring the applicants his level best under the provisions but the applicants never want to live with him. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 01.03.2019, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month towards maintenance to the applicant No. 2/daughter but with respect to non-applicant No. 1/ wife, dismissed her application and further order to bear Rs. 1000/- for the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, as well as fact available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material available on record, passed the order impugned. The learned Family Court had erred in partly allowing the maintenance application filed by the applicants. The learned Family Court in a very arbitrary manner without properly appreciating the material and documents, partly allowed the monthly maintenance application, thereby granting Rs. 1500/- in favour of applicant No.2 and rejected the maintenance in favour of applicant No.1, which is unreasonable and illegal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month has 4 been awarded towards maintenance of the non-applicant No. 2/daughter and after appreciating the the same, rejected the application of the non-applicant No.1/wife. It appears that the learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in granting maintenance solely to the minor child, considering his status as a dependent and the legal obligation of the father to maintain him. The absence of any finding or relief regarding non-applicant No.1 indicates that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to allow her claim for maintenance, which, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal