1 2025:CGHC:30953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 802 of 2019 Mukesh Kumar Mahobiya S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Mahobiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Main Road, Infront Shailesh Medical Store, Baikunthpur, P.S. And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ku. Shruti @ Ruhi Mahobiya D/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Mahobiya Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Namely Smt. Ranjana, W/o Mukesh Mahobiya, Both Are R/o Ledari Colliery, P.S. Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 25/2018, arising out of the order dated 01.04.2016 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/2024, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for enhancement of maintenance RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent and directed the applicant that he has to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 3. The facts, in brief, is that applicant and Smt. Ranjana were solemnized the marriage on 04.02.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom and due to their wedlock, one daughter Ku. Shruti born and after that, the respondents and Smt. Ranjana herein filed application under section 125 of Cr. P. C. that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family member have harassed and tortured to Smt. Ranjana due to less dowry and they have demanded the money of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Smt. Ranjana by pressure, then Smt. Ranjana has refused the said amount, meanwhile, one daughter Ku. Shruti born, thereafter, Smt. Ranjana kept on the rental house by the applicant and his family member, and on 07.01.2013 her parents were given amount Rs. 50,000/- to the applicant and after that, on 23.11.2013 Smt. Ranjana and Ku. Shruti have gone with her brother at Baikunthpur, and at present, they are residing with her parental house at Baikunthpur and present applicant has furniture shop and he earns Rs. 50,000/- per month, hence the respondents for seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from applicant per month, which has been registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/2014. The applicant has filed written statement and denied the all averment pleading in the maintenance application filed by the respondent and it is also stated that he has never treated cruelty with the Smt. Ranjana. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, has passed the order of only maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the respondent, Ku. Shruti after considering the facts and material available on record vide its order dated 01.04.2016. Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea, the 3 respondent with deliberately intention have filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancing the maintenance amount Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.), which has been registered the Misc. Criminal Case No. 25/2018. 4. The applicant has filed the reply and denied the contention of the application filed by the respondent. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties passed the impugned order, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application of the respondents and directed to the applicant to pay the amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is without any appreciation of facts, and material available on record only on the basis of arbitrary manner, thus, the impugned order is completely illegal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned trial judge has failed to see that Smt. Ranjana Mahobiya who is the wife of the applicant and mother of the respondent, has left the house of the applicant without any sufficient reason and she is living separately. It is further submitted that Smt. Ranjana Mahobiya is capable to maintain herself and the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by this Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of 4 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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