1 2025:CGHC:37946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 860 of 2021 1 - Jalgayatri W/o Bhagilal Matre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Lohdangia, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village Singhanpuri, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Parmeshwar S/o Bhagilal Matre Aged About 10 Years Pet No. 2 Minor Through Her Mother Natural Guardian Jalgayatri, R/o Village Lohdangia, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village Singhanpuri, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ---Applicants versus Bhagilal Matre S/o Radhelal Matre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lohdangia, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh District Bemetara (C.G.) Occupation Agriculturist --- Respondent For Applicants/Wife & Child : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/Husband : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Along with CRR No. 672 of 2021 Bhagilal Matre S/o Radhelal Matre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Lohdangia, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus 1 - Jalgayatri W/o Bhagilal Matre Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Lohdangia, P.S. Nandgaht, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Singhanpuri, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Parmeshwar S/o Bhagilal Matre Aged About 10 Years R/o Village Lohdangia, P.S. Nandgaht, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Singhanpuri, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 For Applicant/Husband : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/Wife & Child : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. These Criminal Revisions are being aggrieved of the judgment dated 03.01.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC Case No. 230/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the wife and child, for grant of maintenance, and ordered the husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the child. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the wife and child have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance mentioning therein that the wife got married with the husband on 12.06.2009 as per chudi- traditions and out of their wedlock the the child has born on 15.08.2010. she further stated that her husband and his parents had threaten and committed marpit with the wife for demand of dowry and out her from the matrimonial house, on account of this she had lodged a report against the husband and his family members at concern Police Station which was registered as Crime No. 36/2014 for an offence under Section 498A, 34 of I.P.C., father of the wife and some members of village and society given advice to the husband to keep good behave with the wife and child, but he had refused and misbehave with her therefore the wife and child are leaving in her parental house. On account of misbehave of the husband and his parents the wife facing mental illness and she is not 3 incompetent to perform any work and also the child is a minor children, when the husband is an agriculturist and he earns income Rs.15,00,000/- per year from the agriculture land. The husband is a competent person, but he has not perform his liability, therefore the wife and child have filed the maintenance application for grant of Rs.10,000/- in favour of wife and 5,000/- in favour of child against the husband. 3. The husband (Bhagilal Matre) 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 partly allowed the application filed by the wife and child, and ordered the husband that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the child as maintenance. Hence, these revisions. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the husband (Bhagilal Matre) submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the wife is herself residing separately with the husband who was not even a legally wedded wife and the fact that the child is the son of Bhagilal Matre is also not proven before the Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the wife (Jalgayatri) and child (Parmeshwar) opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court has awarded a very meager amount towards the maintenance which may not be sufficient looking to the price index prevailing in the state. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and 4 documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, 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 instant criminal revisions being devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar