1 2025:CGHC:28200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 841 of 2024 1 - Smt. Aafrin W/o Nafees Bilal Quraishi Aged About 27 Years R/o Q. No. -2, Road No. -29, Sector-5, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Mohammad Shahjen S/o Nafees Bilal Quaraishi, Aged About 06 Months, Minor Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Aafrin, R/o Q. No. -2, Road No. -29, Sector-5, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Applicants versus Nafees Bilal Quraishi S/o Hafiz Mohammad Aged About 31 Years R/o Q. No. G.V. 94, Geetanjali Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Cr. Case No. 728/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that applicant No. 1 is the wife and applicant No. 2 is the minor son of the respondent. The marriage of appellant No. 1 with respondent took place on 01.11.2020 at Pragati Bhawan, Civik Centre Bhilai under Muslim Custom and out of their wedlock one son Namely Mohammad Shahjen (presently 2 years) was born and they are residing with the respondent. Before 7 days of marriage the father of respondent demanded sum of rupees 10 Lacs as dowry and after marriage, the behavior of respondent was not good and respondent and his family member committing cruelty on the ground that dowry. On 16.11.2020 the applicant No. 1 and respondent went to Odisha where there is no essential items for house and applicant No.1 had to sleep the floor even in cold weather. She had get up at 4 O'clock morning and cooking food in heater and she had faced 3-4 electric shock. When the applicant No. 1 alone in kitchen at that time father of the respondent came and touches her hair and eye brow and when she was telling about the incident respondent not given intension. When applicant No.1 became pregnant at that time the respondent and his family member was not happy. During the pregnancy the respondent was not residing with the applicant No. 1 and never called her. On 12.12.2021 applicant No. 2 was borne. The applicant No. 1 is house wife and respondent is an engineer and working in the private company and gating salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month. There are 2 houses in the name of respondent at Bilaspur in which one house was rented and obtained rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The father of respondent is working in Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. Odisha and gating salary of Rs. 1,20,000/- per months and the applicant No. 1 has no source of income. She has moved an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and praying for Rs. 45,000/- per month as maintenance. After notice the respondent submitted his 3 reply and denied the allegation of application and stated that whether the applicant No. 2 is the son of respondent or not, his DNA test is necessary for confirmation because applicant No. 1 had told that her pregnancy had been miscarriage. The respondent also stated that when the applicant No. 1 came to her mother house in Bhilai at that time on 25.12.2020 the respondent and his family member at that time applicant No. 1 and her family member misbehave with them and applicant No. 1 refused to come with respondent. The respondent also stated that at present he is jobless and depend on his father which will be retired soon. The learned Family Court found that the applicant has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and grant maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order dated 18.04.2024. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is a salaried employee, and respondent is an engineer and working in the private company and getting salary of Rs. 80,000/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, 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 4 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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