1 2025:CGHC:29835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 794 of 2025 1 - Smt. Varsha Dubey W/o Ashish Kumar Dubey Aged About 32 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Ramanujnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Yalini Dubey @ Arna Dubey D/o Ashish Dubey (Mother Varsha Dubey) Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Varsha Dubey (Applicant No. 1), R/o Agrasen Chowk Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Ramanujnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Arun Dubey S/o Ashish Dubey (Mother Varsha Dubey) Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Varsha Dubey (Applicant No. 1), R/o Agrasen Chowk Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Ramanujnagar, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ashish Dubey S/o Vijay Dubey Aged About 35 Years Occupation Businessman, R/o Agrasen Chowk Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 10.09.2024 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 120/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of CRPC alleging in it that the marriage of applicant No.1 and non-applicant solemnized on 30.05.2015 as per the caste custom prevalent between the parties and out of their marriage, they blessed with two children who are applicant No.1 and 2. As per the averments of the maintenance application filed by the applicants, soon after the marriage the applicant No.1/wife ill-treated by the family member of non-applicant/husband i.e. brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law. The applicant No.1 was also assaulted by her sister-in- law and the matter was reported to the Police and applicant No.1 is residing in the house of her parents along with the children and at number of times, the father of applicant No.1 tried to pacify the dispute, but the non-applicant is not willing to resides along with the wife. It is further mentioned that the applicant No.1 is not having any source of income and she is facing great hardship for the livelihood of her children and the husband is working in the job of video shooting and also dance classes and apart from this, the husband is having 5 acres of agricultural land and is having residential house, which was given on rent and he used to earn a sum of Rs.22 lakhs yearly. 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 3 before the learned Family Court including the applicants and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3. 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 erred in dismissing the application of maintenance in respect of wife and the finding which was recorded by the learned Family Court is that the applicant No.1 failed to establish this fact that she is residing separately without sufficient cause, such finding of the learned Family Court is liable to be set-aside as the wife duly examined before the learned Family Court and she categorically deposed in her deposition that she was ill-treated by the husband and his family members and in her cross examination, this facts has not been rebutted. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 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 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 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