1 2025:CGHC:33811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 671 of 2025 1 - Smt. Laxmani Kurrey W/o Ajeet Kurrey Aged About 30 Years The R/o A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Nagar, Near Kali Mandir, Risda Road Balodabazar, District Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Aaradhya Kurrey D/o Ajeet Kurrey Aged About 7 Years Aged About 7months, Through Her Legal Guardian Mother, The R/o A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Nagar, Near Kali Mandir, Risda Road Balodabazar, District Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Ajeet Kurrey S/o Sukhu Kurrey Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Murlidih, Tehsil- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Aditya Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Diwan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Baldalazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 159/2023, whereby the learned Family RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance and rejected the claim of the applicant No.1. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.06.2023 the present applicants have filed an application under Section 125 the CrPC for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- before the Family Court on the allegations that the marriage between the present applicant and respondent was solemnized on 28.11.2021 following the Hindu rituals and thereafter, the present applicant started residing at her matrimonial house situated in Village Murlidih, Tehsil - Akaltara, District-Janjgir Champa. The applicant has further alleged that the very next day of their marriage the respondent/non-applicant has started pressurizing the present applicant to change her religion from Hindu to Christian and to accept Christianity, he used to force her to drink Holy water, refusing which the respondent and his family members started misbehaving with the applicant. The applicant No.1 has further alleged in the application that out of their wedlock a daughter named Aaradhya (applicant No. 2) was born on 26.10.2022, before delivery of the girl child the respondent sent the applicant to her paternal house and since then the respondent never came back to take them home not even tried to know their whereabouts. When she tried to connect through the phone call the respondent blocked her and her family members phone number. When applicant was residing at her matrimonial house the respondent along with his family members used to assault her physically and mentally for taking less dowry. The applicant has further alleged in her application that the respondent is a software engineer and by working in a software company he earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month even then after passing of 4 3 - 5 months of their marriage the respondent threatened the father of the applicant No.1 and took Rs. 3,00,000/- in his account and after some time again started demanding money from the father of the applicant No.1 and when applicant's father failed to give money the respondent left the applicant No.1 at her father's house for delivery of the child since then he never came back to take them home. 4. The respondent has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. After perusing the documents and hearing the submissions of the parties, and the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance, and rejected the claim of the applicant No.1. 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. It is further submitted that the the respondent is a software engineer and by working in a software company he earns Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from his service, even that the learned Family Court has ignoring this fact and granted only 12,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant No.2 and rejected the claim of the applicant No.1, hence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. 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 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Baldalazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 159/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and 4 directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance, and rejected the claim of the applicant No.1, 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