1 2025:CGHC:28192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 770 of 2025 Smt. Neelam Banjare W/o Anil Banjare D/o Nageshwar Tandon Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Patalkundi Police Station Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G.) At Present R/o Mini Basti Jarhabhatha, Ward No. 21, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) (Revisioner ) ... Applicant versus Anil Banjare S/o Ajay Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Patalkundi Police Station Lalpur District - Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 206/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and non-applicant are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 05.06.2017 as per the caste, custom prevalent between the parties. The marriage between the applicant and non applicant was solemnized on 05.06.2017, following the Hindu Rites and rituals. The applicant/wife that soon after her engagement, the husband used to meet and beat her. On this regard the village Panchayat convened a meeting wherein the husband upon a stamp of Rs. 50/- undertook that he will not harass her and will keep her and will keep her safely. Even after bringing Stree Dhan (details mentioned in para 5 of the impugned order) the husband and his family member harassed and assaulted her to bring cash and vehicle from her home. In order for employment of the husband, the applicant/wife has given him 1,20,000/- from her parental home. On the basis of which a society was opened in the name of applicant/wife, but the same is controlled and operated by the husband. The applicant/wife is not returning the said amount and threatens to implicate her in false case by doing forgery in the society. Thus, the husband moved an application to dissolve the society on 02-08-20221 before the learned Collector and Zanpad Panchayat Mungeli. The husband along with his mother, brother, uncle and grandfather etc, snatched all the ornaments and ousted her from the house on 28-07-2021, asking to bring cash and vehicle from parental home to that effect on 03-08-2021, the applicant/wife has lodged the report against the applicant and his family members in Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli. The applicant does not work and is totally dependent upon her parents while the husband operates the society and has 5 acres of farming land form which he earns Rs. 5.00,000/- thus, from the above contention the applicant/wife has sought 20,000/- as maintenance amount. The non-applicant/husband filed his 3 reply and it was pleaded in the reply that denied all the adverse allegation made against him. The husband also stated in his reply that wife applicant is not willing to resides in his house and also not discharging her duty properly. The husband tried to resolve the dispute but the wife herself not wants to resides after hearing both the parties and perusal of record and pleadings, the learned family Court framed as many as 03 issues and finally allowed the application filed by the applicant in part and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as amount of maintenance, which is very much meager and on the lower side. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought to have taken into consideration that the applicant is facing economical problems because at present, she is house wife and there is no source of income. The learned Family Court ought to have taken into consideration that the amount of maintenance is not enough for the applicant for her maintenance. The husband is running the Government Society and also having 5 acres of land and thus he used to earn a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum, so the amount of maintenance which was passed in favour of wife to the tune of Rs.5000/- is shockingly on the lower side and liable to be enhanced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 4 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