1 2025:CGHC:34627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 648 of 2022 Nilendri Pani W/o Niranjan Pani, Aged About 30 Years R/o Paterapali, Post Bhawarapur, Police Station Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Niranjan Pani S/o Krishnachand Pani, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pendrawan, Post Saldih, Police Station Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anjay Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 17/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and respondent performed the marriage on 12.03.2008 as per the caste custom prevailing in between the parties and out of their wedlock they blessed with two children i.e. Yogesh Pani and Khagesh Pani who resided alongwith respondent. As per the averments of the maintenance application which was filed by the applicant before the learned Family Court mentioning in it that the respondent under the pressure of his father wants to perform second marriage and when the applicant went to the in- laws house he locked the door and threatened her to life and non- applicant doubted the character of the applicant and the father of the non-applicant tried to outrage her modesty. The applicant lodged the report against the non-applicant and his father to the police of Police Station Sankra and thereafter a counseling was conduced at family consultation center and the non-applicant pressurizing her for divorce and she is residing at her paternal house and she is not in a position to maintain herself and so far the respondent is concerned he is working as a electrician and used to earn sum of Rs. 1000/- per day and the applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 7000/- as a maintenance amount from the respondent. 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 the CrPC filed by the 3 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 used to talk to her relatives, and there is no recording to demonstrate that the applicant used to talk with other man and there is no video in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same 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 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 17/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the 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. 4 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar