1 2025:CGHC:30951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 836 of 2019 Tilotama @ Meenakshi Chakradhari W/o Shro Manoj Chakradhari, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tupakbora, Post Ganjar, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Presently R/at Post Gadhfuljhar, Police Station And Tashil Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Manoj Chakradhari S/o Nainsingh Chakradhari Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Tupakabora, Post Ganjar, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Office Address Govt. Middle School, Ganjar Post Ganjar, Police Station And Tahsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.05.2019 RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for seeking the maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- from the respondent and it was pleaded in the application that on 13.05.2013 the marriage of the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized as per the caste custom prevalent in between the parties and after the marriage the non-applicant and his relatives ill treated her and called her Tonhi and demanded the car and ultimately on 20.09.2013 ousted from the house and thereafter a written report lodged by the applicant, whereby the Police of Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, registered the offence under Sectino 498-A of the IPC. Once she ousted from the house no effort was made from the non- applicant and his family member to bring her back and the applicant is residing in the house of her parents and she is unable to maintain herself, while the non-applicant is a teacher at Govt. Middle School and used to earn sum of Rs. 35,287/- per month and the applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as a maintenance amount. 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 3 the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- 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 has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a lady having no source of income at present and non-applicant is a teacher at Govt. Middle School and used to earn sum of Rs. 35,287/- per month, but despite the said fact the learned Family Court has awarded only Rs.5,000/- 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 30.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court – Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2018, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- 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. 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 4 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 as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar