1 2025:CGHC:28188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1199 of 2019 Sarita Kerketta D/o Jaddhu Kerketta Aged About 21 Years R/o Nanadmali, Police Station Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Jaddhu Kerketta S/o Nadhiya Uraon Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Agriculture R/o Nanadmali, Police Station Darima Tehsil District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Jhawar, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 117/2014, whereby the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that an application under Section 125 of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant Sarita Kerketta and her mother Dhanvanti (Now Dead) alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and marriage between the party was solemnized as per customary ritual 20 years ago and out of their wedlock present applicant was born. Thereafter, the non-applicant put them out of his house and solemnized second marriage, thereafter the applicant started living along with her mother and her mother filed the instant application as the present applicant was minor when the application was filed, claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. The non-applicant filed his reply and denied the contentions made by the applicant and stated that the present applicant is not his daughter therefore she is no entitled for any maintenance. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence of the parties held that the applicant has not proved that the applicant is not able to maintain herself therefore she is not entitled for maintenance and consequently the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned Court has also held that the present applicant Sarita Kerketta is daughter of the non-applicant which is proved by the DNA report. The applicant has also proved that she is unable to maintain herself as she is having no source of income but the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the present applicant is not able to maintain herself. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 117/2014, whereby the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar