1 2025:CGHC:28604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 782 of 2019 Smt. Laxmi Verma W/o Ghanshyam Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o M.I.G. Qr. No. 36, Housing Board Kohaka, Police Station- Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ghanshyam Verma S/o Santram Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Shankarpur, Ward No. 7, Police Station- Chikli, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Pathankar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Pathankar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 25.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 975/2014, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and the respondent were married to each other on 19.05.2013 at Kohka Durg by Hindu rituals and after the marriage the applicant started living at Rajnandgaon at her matrimonial house. After 15 days of the marriage the husband and his relative started abusing the applicant and also started physical and mental torture and due to which a social meeting was called and assurance was given that the applicant would be treated properly and again the applicant went to her matrimonial house. After few days on suspicion that the applicant is having an affair with some other boy she was again physically and mentally tortured and demand of dowry was made to her for expansion of computer business of the husband of the applicant. As the greed of the husband and his family members started increasing day by day the applicant left her matrimonial house and came to Bhilai and the respondent never tried to take her back. When the father and brother of the applicant came to the house of the respondent to drop the applicant they were abused and were threatened that even if a report is made against them they have no danger as earlier also the father-in- law of the respondent went to jail and the father and brother along with the applicant were thrown out of the house. Due to ill-treatment of the husband and family members, the applicant is residing with her parents at Bhilai and as such an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the Family Court, Durg claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month as the respondent has computer centre and also does the job of video shooting along with the application for grant of maintenance an application for grant of interim maintenance was also filed before the Family Court. 3 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. 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 partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant as 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. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that Section 125 of CrPC is a piece of benevolent legislation made for deserted wife who is unable to maintain herself and in the present case the applicant has no source of income yet, the learned Family Court has awarded only Rs.2,000/- to the applicant as maintenance which is very low and deserves to be enhanced. 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 25.05.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in MJC No. 975/2014, whereby the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant 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. 4 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar