1 2025:CGHC:48982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 897 of 2021 Smt. Vasundhara Pradhan W/o Shri Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pradhan Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Saraypali Basti, Thana And Tahsil - Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Dr. Rakesh Kumar Pradhan S/o Shri Manoranjan Pradhan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Pithoura, Thana And Tahsil - Pithoura, Distt.- Mahasaund (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court Saraypali, District – Mahasaund (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 31/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant is the wife of the respondent their marriage was taken place on 19.01.2012 as per the custom prevailing in the society and as per the Hindu marriage Act and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 due to wedlock they having a female child namely Ku. Priyansh who is born on 28.11.2013 and at present residing with the respondent, the respondent has not taken care of his wife even not provided any amount for maintenance therefore the occasion arise for filling of the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the application is filed on 18.03.2020. The brief facts of the case is that just after the birth of the daughter respondent and his family members started harassing her stating that she given the birth to a female child and both of them were suffering from Ciklecell decease and due to the said reason respondent left the applicant at her mayka situated at village Saraypali and since 29.09.2017 he left her a mayka and kept the daughter with him and not taken care of her even not provided any amount for maintenance and the applicant is totally depend upon her father for the livelihood and food since the September 2017. The respondent is working as Govt. Doctor and use to earn Rs. 80,000/- per Months from the Govt job and having other source of income and also duty bound to maintain her wife but not providing any amount for maintenance therefore the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant on 18.03.2020 with claiming a maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicants. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is working as a Government Doctor and he used to earn Rs. 80,000/- per month from the Govt. Job and having other source of income, but despite the same the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- which is not justified and reasonable as well as it not accordance with law prescribed for maintenance. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the 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