1 2025:CGHC:27415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 647 of 2018 Surekha Bai Markandey W/o Ubaran Das Aged About 29 Years R/o Bade Ragra ( Indouri) At Present R/o Village Barbaspur, P. S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ubaran Das Markandey S/o Janak Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Indouri (Bade Ragra) At Present R/o Village Barbaspur, P. S. Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.05.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.14/2018, whereby the 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 legally waded wife of the respondent and from their wedlock, three children, namely, Kumari Payal, Kumari Jyoti and Jigar Kumar were born. After some time of marriage, the respondent and his parents have tortured and harassed the applicant and they have demanded the money and motorcycle from the applicant. It is further pleaded in the month of May 2017 the respondent and his parent committed marpeet with the applicant and also create a doubt that she has illicit relationship with some other person. On that day, the respondent and his parents have called the parents of the applicant about 10.00 P.M. and sent the applicant with her parents since she is a residing in the parental house, the children were also with the applicant, but the respondent have forcefully stopped the children, hence the applicant had filed petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned family Court for maintenance and claiming Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount. The family Court has examined the witnesses of the applicant as A.W. No. 1 Surekha Bai and A.W. No. 2 Ramprasad who has supported the version of the applicant, on the other side, the respondent have produced 3 himself as D.W. No. 1 and Ganga Bai D.W. No. 2 who have supported the respondent. Ater hearing the parties, the learned Family Court has rejected the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C.. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has filed to consider that respondent assaulted the applicant, thrown out from house, learned Judge also failed to consider that the respondent is young, healthy person and running a shop, wherein, he earns handsome income of Rs.50,000/- per month. He further submits that on 09.03.2018, learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance to the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the applicant. 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 applicant has failed to establish her case. He further observed that the applicant has not 4 demonstrated a sufficient reason for not residing with the respondent. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the respondent cannot be held liable for the applicant's maintenance. 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 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