1 2025:CGHC:25128 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 582 of 2017 1 - Sharda Bai W/o. Badri Prasad Verma, D/o Punelal Tekam Aged About 30 Years, 2 - Ku. Sadhana @ Ratna D/o Badri Prasad Verma, Aged About 01 Year Minor Through His Guardian Mother Sharda Bai Both are R/o Lakhanpur Khurd, Thana/ Tahsil/ Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh, --- Applicants versus Badri Prasad Verma S/o Takhat Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Lakhanpur Khurd, Thana/ Tahsil/ Post Office Bodla, District Kabeerdham Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRR No. 638 of 2017 Badri Prasad Verma S/o Takhat Verma, Aged About 45 Years (Actual Attend The Age Of 54 Years) Business Agriculture And Grain Merchant Cultivator R/o Lakhanpur Khurd, Tehsil And Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ---Applicant Versus GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:49:28 +0530 2 1 - Sharda Bai W/o Badri Prasad Verma, D/o Punelal Tekam, Occupation House Wife 2 - Ku. Sadhna @ Ratna, D/o Badri Prasad Verma, Aged About 1 Year Minor Under The Guardianship Of Mother Sharda Bai R/o Thakatpur Khurd, Tahsil And Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Applicants : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate in CRR No. 582 of 2017. For Respondent : None in CRR No. 582 of 2017. For Applicant None in CRR No. 638 of 2017. For Respondents Shri Samir Singh, Advocate in CRR No. 638 of 2017. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Both these criminal revisions are decided by this common order. 2. Heard Shri Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in CRR No. 582 of 2017 and none appears for the respondent. 3. The applicants have filed criminal revision CRR No. 582 of 2017 against the order dated 16/05/2027 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.480/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to applicant No.2. 3 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 03.12.2014 according to religious rights and customs. The applicant preferred an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against respondent, before Family Court at Kabeerdham (C.G.). The respondent/husband used to assault and harass the applicant. It is also pleaded that on 10.06.2015 one child was born, but wife was throne out, due to which she was unable to live in her matrimonial house and she is fully dependent on her parent and thus she filed applicationU/s 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has partly allowed the said application of the applicants and rejected maintenance amount for applicant No. 1 and granted Rs.2000/- per month to applicant No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without considering the material available on record. He would submit that the learned Family Court has found the respondent is a business men and getting pension of Rs.30,000/- per month, he is able to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/-. He would submit that the amount of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- granted to the applicant No. 2/daughter is too meager to maintain herself, when the income of father is Rs.30,000/- per month, and also maintenance is granted from date of filing of the application. He would submit that order of the learned Family Court is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside 4 and maintenance should be granted to applicant No.1 also and the amount of maintenance granted to applicant No. 2 should be enhanced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month to applicant No.2 observing that the applicant no.1 is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. However, applicant no. 2, Kumari Sadhana @ Ratna, is proved to be the minor illegitimate child of the respondent, as confirmed by the DNA test, which established that the child was born out of a relationship between the applicant no.1 and the respondent. Therefore, the applicants have partially succeeded in proving their claim. Consequently, the claim for maintenance made by applicant no. 1 for herself was rejected. However, applicant no. 2 is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 9. Accordingly, the revision CRR No.582 of 2017 being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. So far as revision CRR No. 638 of 2017 is concerned, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the applicant to press this revision when the case is called out. Shri Samir Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondents. 11. It appears that the applicant has lost his interest to pursue this matter. 12. Accordingly, the revision CRR No. 638 of 2017 is dismissed on this ground alone. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri