1 2025:CGHC:41613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1017 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vineeta Sahu W/o Shri Surendra Sahu, D/o Shri Mekaldas Sahu Aged About 30 Years At- Village Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Presently At- Navagadh, Dewangan Mohalla, Ward No. 12, P S And Tahsil- Navagadh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rudransh Sahu (Minor) S/o Surendra Sahu Aged About 3 Years And 08 Months, Through Next Of Kin Mother Smt. Vineeta Sahu, At- Village Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, Presently At- Navagadh, Dewangan Mohalla, Ward No. 12, P S And Tahsil- Navagadh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Surendra Sahu S/o Shri Lachiram Sahu Aged About 36 Years At- Village Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, P S And Tahsil- Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Mob- 7974180037 ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 89/2024, 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. 5,000/- per month to the applicant No. 2 as maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant herein preferred an application under section 125 of CrPC stating that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent, whereas applicant No. 2 is the son born out of the wedlock of the parties. In the application she also stated that her marriage was solemnized on 09/06/2019 and at the time of marriage, the respondent was posted as Postal Superintendent at Adim Jaati Kalyan Vibhag, Bilaspur and was drawing salary of Rs. 50-55 thousand per month. In the application, she also stated that after her marriage she was subjected to cruelty. The applicant wife also averred in her application that on 09/11/2022 she was assaulted and abused by the respondent due to which she reported the matter to police by calling emergency dial number 112 and preferred a complaint before Mahila Thana, Bilaspur. She also averred in her application that her in-laws also maltreated her due to which she was forced to reside at her parental home. She also averred in her application that her Streedhan and other apparels were also forcibly kept by her in-laws and has not been returned even when she was driven out of her matrimonial home. The applicant wife also averred in her application that despite such maltreatment she tried to reconcile and went to respondent's native village for reconciliation meeting, but there also she and her parents were abused and assaulted by the respondent. She also specifically mentioned in her application that she had lodged a written complaint before the SP, Janjgir and PS Navagadh adhering to which a criminal case is pending before the JMFC of Navagadh. 4. The learned Family Court found that the applicant No.1 has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court 3 passed impugned order. 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. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is posted as Postal Superintendent at Adim Jaati Kalyan Vibhag, Bilaspur and was drawing salary of Rs. 50-55 thousand per month. 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar