1 2025:CGHC:27475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 589 of 2018 Anupam Benarjee S/o Shri D.P. Benarjee Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Rinku Benarjee R/o B 25 Nehru Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shri D. P. Benarjee S/o Dr. B.K. Benarjee Aged About 44 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, East Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently Resided At B 5/7 Swagat Residency Motera, Ahamdabad Gujrat, District : Ahmadabad, Gujarat ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma holding the brief of Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Virendra Verma holding the brief of Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. , learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.02.2014 passed by learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No.443/2013, whereby the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is minor and he is living separately from the respondent and has filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance amount. The application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is rejected by learned Family Court due to a mutual consent draw by mother of the applicant in the proceeding of application u/s 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The mother was given consent for the divorce with the alimony of Rs. 60,000/- for himself and Rs. 20,000/- for the applicant as well as she has found L.I.C. policies and Ulip Policies and she was given consent for the future that she will not file any maintenance application by applicant. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that mother of applicant is traditional Bengoli lady and she is not aware of hindi language, she knows English and Bangla language, but the applicant under Section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been drafted in Hindi so she was not aware about the content mentioned in the application. He further submits that the amount of maintenance given by the respondent in the account of applicant is only Rs.20,000/- , which is not sufficient for the livelihood. He also submits that the applicant is brilliant student presently, he is studying in Class-XI in Navoday Vidhyalaya Malhan, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Moreover, he is a minor child and his mother is 3 jobless, she earns very less income by doing small works, which is not sufficient to run fruitfully for the applicant, due to the said reason applicant's education is suffering. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the respondent has given a bank draft No. 829889 dated December 4, 2008, for Rs.80,000 to the applicant for maintenance, and certificates for six LIC policies, one Ulip policy, and NSCs made in favor of the applicant and her son, Anupam Banerjee, which were handed over to the applicant. The applicant has received the same and he will not claim any maintenance from the respondent for herself and her son in the future. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 4 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil