1 2025:CGHC:30935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 955 of 2021 1 - Smt. Hema Tondon W/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yuvraj Tondon S/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Tondon W/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Kunal Tondan S/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Tondon W/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Anika Tondon D/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 2 Years 5 Months, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Hema Tondon W/o Ravi Tondon, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Thelkadih, Police Station And Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Ravi Tondon S/o Dr. Bhimraj Tondan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Government School, Mahalaxmi Kirana Store, Shiv Nagar, Newaibhatha, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : None For Non-applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. None appears nor any representation made on behalf of the applicants to press this revision on repeated calls. 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Non- applicant. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed by the the Circuit Family Court of Rajnandgaon Family Court, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon C.G. in MJC No. 84/2018 "Smt. Hema Tondon & ors Vs. Ravi Tondon" dated 19.7.2019 and further be pleased to allow the application filed by applicants under section u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., in the ends of justice.” 4. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between Applicant No.1 and the Non-Applicant was solemnized in April 2010 according to Hindu rites in Village Thelkadih, and out of the wedlock, three children Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were born. On 11.07.2018, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging that the Non- Applicant, after a few years of marriage, became addicted to liquor and drugs, subjected Applicant No.1 to cruelty, and demanded dowry. It was further alleged that on 01.06.2018, the Non-Applicant and his family members assaulted and forcefully ousted her and the 3 children from the matrimonial home. After lodging a police report and undergoing medical treatment, Applicant No.1 began residing with her parents along with the children. She claimed that the Non- Applicant owns a provision and general store in Bhilai, hires out a Swift car, and earns approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month, while she has no independent source of income. She sought Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance. The Non-Applicant denied the allegations, asserting that Applicant No.1 was living separately without sufficient cause. During trial, both parties examined their respective witnesses. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence and noting that a decree of restitution of conjugal rights had been passed in favor of the Non-Applicant, concluded that Applicant No.1 was residing separately without sufficient cause and thus not entitled to maintenance. However, considering the educational needs and dependency of the children, the Court awarded a total maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 1,500/- each) in favor of Applicant Nos. 2 to 4. 5. learned counsel, appearing for the Non-applicant supports the impugned order passed by the learned Circuit Family Court of Rajnandgaon Family Court, Khairagarh District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the non-applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence 4 on record and passed a just and reasoned order. Considering the decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the Non-Applicant and the evidence indicating that Applicant No.1 was residing separately without sufficient cause, the Court correctly held that she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. At the same time, the Court also took into account the needs and welfare of the minor children, who are clearly dependent and require support for their education and basic needs, and accordingly awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 4,500/- per month (Rs. 1,500/- each) in their favor. The order balances the rights and responsibilities of both parties and is in accordance with law, facts, and the spirit of justice. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan