1 2025:CGHC:35469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 894 of 2025 1 - Smt. Megha Khatri (Growar) W/o Sachin Growar Aged About 31 Years R/o Industrial Area Road Shanti Nagar Faijalpur Infront Of Body Tailors Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Samayra (Minor) D/o Sachin Growar Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Megha Khatri R/o Industrial Area Road Shanti Nagar Faijalpur Infront Of Body Tailors Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Sachin Growar S/o Shri Indar Growar Aged About 32 Years R/o Shiv Temple Street (Growar House) Jagdalpur P.S. Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur, District – Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 96/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance before the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:47:19 +0530 2 Family court Jagdalpur. Applicant No.1 is legal wife of the respondent and married as per Hindu custom and applicant No. 2 is the daughter of respondent. Marriage of the applicant No.1 and respondent took place on 18.04.2018. one baby child was born from their marital relationship. whose names Ku. Samayra who is presently 6 years old and applicant No.2 in the instant petition. The respondent kept the applicant No.1 with him lovingly for 3 to 4 months. Later the applicant starting the quarrel and ill treatment with the applicant No.1 and Thereafter respondent's behavior towards her deteriorated and he used to fight on small issues every day, ultimately on 21.03.2019 he threw her from his house by beating her. Due to the respondent's fighting and assault, the applicant has leave his house and come to her father's house with hope that after sometimes his behavior will change, but there was no change in his behavior. After that two or three times she wants to came back to her in- law's house, then respondent and his mother threw her out of the house and flatly refused to keep her with them and said that they would not want to get back her. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent works with his brother in his family business of auto parts which is biggest shop of Jagdalpur earn Rs. 500000/- per months which means his income is too much sufficient to her maintenance. It is moral responsibility of the respondent to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the applicants have filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and requested to provide maintenance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month from respondent. 4. The respondent has denied the allegations levelled against him in the application. After perusing the documents and hearing the submissions of the parties, and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application by rejecting the claim of the respondent No.1 and directed the 3 respondent that he has to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the the learned Family Court has erred in not taking into proper consideration the material and evidence available on record and rejected the application of the applicant No.1 and awarded very less amount for respondent No.2, hence, liable to be set-aside regarding to the applicant No.1 and to be enhanced regarding to the applicant No.2. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti