1 2025:CGHC:41449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1045 of 2024 1 - Smt. Salini Ragde W/o Shri Umesh Ragde Aged About 30 Years R/o Jai Kali Chowk, Bhoipara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. Mo. No. 8319471290 2 - Navya Ragade (Minor) D/o Shri Umesh Ragade Aged About 8 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Salini Ragade, W/o Shri Umesh Ragade, R/o Jai Kali Chowk, Bhoipara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Arav Ragade (Minor) S/o Shri Umesh Ragade Aged About 5 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Salini Ragade, W/o Shri Umesh Ragade, R/o Jai Kali Chowk, Bhoipara, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus Umesh Ragde S/o Shri Ramesh Ragde Aged About 36 Years R/o Jai Kali Chowk, Bhoipara, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.146/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an undisputed fact in the case that the marriage of applicant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) and the respondent was solemnized on 16.07.2010 according to Hindu customs at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur (C.G.). From their marital union, one daughter and one son were born, who are presently residing with the respondent. Both parties are currently living separately. The application of applicant is briefly that after marriage, the respondent used to suspect her character and quarrel and assault her. However, she tolerated everything for the sake of her children’s future and in the hope that the respondent would eventually improve. The applicant further stated that for the last 3– 4 months, the respondent has been living in a rented house with another woman named Preeti Bihone, maintaining an illicit relationship with her. When the applicant opposed this, the respondent along with his brother quarreled with her, locked her in a room, and brutally assaulted her with a belt, due to which her 3 left hand was fractured. Regarding this incident, she lodged a report against the respondent at Police Station Azad Chowk, on the basis of which a case was registered under Sections 294, 323, 498-A & 34 of IPC against the respondent. The applicant has further submitted that the respondent works as a property dealer and earns about Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) per month. Besides this, he owns two houses, two offices, and three cars. One of his offices is situated at Jai Kali Chowk, Raipur and another at Krishna Complex, from which he receives a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand Rupees). The respondent is a resourceful and well-off person, whereas the applicant is unemployed, suffering from ailments, and has been pushed to the brink of starvation. Since she had a love marriage, she does not receive any support from her family, and her financial condition is extremely miserable. Therefore, she has prayed that she be granted Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) per month as maintenance from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the applicants. The Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicants. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Court has erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 30.07.2024. The object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., enacted to prevent destitution and vagrancy of a wife in furtherance of Article 4 15(3) of the Constitution, has been overlooked. The Family Court wrongly relied solely on the statement of the minor daughter (PW- 2), who was living with the respondent and was susceptible to tutoring, to conclude that cruelty was committed by the petitioner and on that ground denied her maintenance. It is well settled that the testimony of a child witness requires careful scrutiny, preliminary examination, and corroboration, none of which were ensured by the Court. The petitioner had sufficient and valid grounds to reside separately, as she was subjected to frequent assaults and had even lodged an FIR against the respondent alleging his extra-marital affair. Even if there were findings of cruelty against the petitioner, the same by itself cannot disentitle her from maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite these facts, the Family Court ignored the materials on record and rejected the application for maintenance solely on the statement of a tutored minor witness, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant observing that the applicant failed to prove cruelty or harassment by the respondent. Instead, from the statements of her minor daughter, it appeared that the applicant herself used to mistreat and even harm the children. The Court found no sufficient evidence that the respondent had subjected the applicant to cruelty. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for maintenance was rejected. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil