1 2025:CGHC:41308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 621 of 2024 Vasundhara @ Juhi Tamrakar W/o Vikas Tamrakar Aged About 21 Years R/o Ramhepur Lormi, Police Station And Tahsil Lormi, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vikas Tamrakar S/o Arvind Tamrakar Aged About 37 Years R/o Block No. 10/d Street No. 11, Sector 05, Bhilai, Police Station And Tahsil Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Nayak, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in MJC No. 358/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court Mungeli (C.G.), wherein stated that she required Rs. 20,000/- per month for her maintenance. The marriage of the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 14.06.2020 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals, thereafter, she living with the respondent, but due to the mental and physical torture, she living separately from the respondent since January 2021. The respondent earns Rs. 50,000/- per month from the Railway as salary as Group D Worker and Rs. 30,000/- earned from as agriculture income and business per month, despite respondent ignored to maintain the applicant. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. 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 the applicant left the matrimonial house due to the physical and mental cruelty done by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 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 30.03.2024 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in MJC No. 358/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of 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. 10. 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