1 2025:CGHC:30954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 775 of 2019 1 - Smt. Bharti W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Bharti Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Litiya, Post Bajrangpur Navagaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon , At Present R/o Village Kotrabhant, Post Surgi, Thana Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhupendra Kumar Bharti S/o Vijay Kumar Bharti, Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Its Mother And Natural Guardian, Smt. Bharti, Aged About 25 Years, W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Bharti, R/o Village Litiya, Post Bajrangpur Navagaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon , At Present R/o Village Kotrabhant, Post Surgi, Thana Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Vijay Kumar Bharti S/o Shri Panna Lal Bharti Aged About 28 Years By Caste Satnami, R/o Village Litiya, Post Bajrangpur, Navagaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the private respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 112/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Rajnandgaon, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 1,000/- 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 from the non- applicant, that marriage was took place on 14/05/2013 between the parties. Out of the said wedlock the applicant No. 2 born on 02/10/2014 and respondent always used to harass the applicant No.1, to bring the dowry and use to beat the applicant No.1 and further torturing her. Further the applicant had no source of income. Village meeting was also called to explain respondent, but adamant attitude was not changed and respondent is working as Supervisor in Krishi Upaj Mandi and having sufficient source of income from agriculture as he is having 5 acres of irrigated land and was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- from that. That applicants claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the respondent. 4. The learned Family Court found that the applicant has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order. Hence, this revision. 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. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent 3 is working as Supervisor in Krishi Upaj Mandi and having sufficient source of income from agriculture as he is having 5 acres of irrigated land and was earning Rs. 2,00,000/- from that. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. 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 04.09.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 112/2016, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Rajnandgaon, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance, 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the 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