1 2025:CGHC:32969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1128 of 2019 Kumari Urvasi Yadav D/o Shatruhan Yadav Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Mother Santoshi Yadav W/o Shatruhan Yadav, R/o Village Behind Electricity Office, Mohabhattha Road, Bemetara, Thana, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shatruhan Yadav S/o Kallu Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Thana, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC/Case No. 70/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court concerned. The applicant has stated that she is a daughter RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 of the respondent, and the respondent and mother of the applicant’s marriage was solemnized by Hindu Rituals, before 19 years ago at Village Berala. After three months the mother of applicant was left by the father/respondent regarding the mother was very weak and do not work anything. Thereafter, the mother of the applicant has resided at her parents house, before left the house of the respondent, the mother of the applicant was pregnant, and during pregnancy, the respondent has beaten to the mother of the applicant, therefore, the health of mother was disturbed, and bring for treatment at Bemetara, and in parental house the applicant has born. After born of the applicant, the respondent hasn ot been caring to the applicant for love affection of father, and also not pay the maintenance of applicant. Mother of applicant has not educating anything and applicant is minor, further the applicant want education, and also will be coming to marriage of applicant very near time, and whole liability is respondent, therefore, he prayed for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- every month. 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 dismissed the application filed by the applicant on the ground that the applicant is not the daughter of the respondent. 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 respondent has himself admitted that the mother of the applicant was resided with him and the marriage was done and their witness have also admitting the marriage was done with the respondent. It is further submitted that the applicant has of proved that she is daughter of the respondent. Therefore, the 3 order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. 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 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in MJC/Case No. 70/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Rajshekhar