1 2025:CGHC:28289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1084 of 2023 1 - Smt. Ishwari Bai W/o Pardeshi Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bitkula, Tahsil And Police Station Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tikeshwar Sahu S/o Pardeshi Lal Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ishwari Sahu (Applicant No. 1), R/o Village Bitkula, Tahsil And Police Station Seepat, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Pardeshilal Sahu S/o Motilal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Caste Sahu, R/o Village Khorsi, Tahsil Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Case No. 165/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, rejected the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that an application an application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed by the applicants, who happened to be wife and minor child of non-applicant. It is pleaded in the application that on 26-05-2014, the applicant No.1 and non-applicant performed the marriage on the custom of Chudi Pratha and out of their wedlock the applicant No.2 was born, who is now aged about 09 years. After some time of marriage, the non-applicant tortured the wife demanding dowry and also torturing physically and mentally to the wife and also abuses filthily language to her. The non-applicant without obtaining the decree of divorce solemnized again marriage with another lady on 19-05-2022, therefore the applicants have filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance demanding Rs. 5,000/- each from the non-applicant. The non-applicant has not submitted his written statement and pleaded ex-parte. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on record, passed the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 and thereby rejected the application filed by the applicants holding that no evidence has been laid by the applicants to prove their case. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of the applicant No.1 who is the wife of the non-applicant, and applicant No.2 who is the son of the non- applicant aged about 9 years, only on the ground that the applicant No. 1 has suppressed the fact that she is a working woman and she is earning salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month, but the application for grant of maintenance with respect of applicant No.2 was also rejected. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 2 is a minor son of the non- applicant aged about 9 years is also required to be maintained by the 3 non-applicant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal and 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 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Case No. 165/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, 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. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicant is a physically and financially capable person, the non- applicant has a tractor and a pick-up vehicle from which he earns Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand rupees) rent per day, and he also has a farm and a concrete house from which he earns Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) rent per month. Hence, the applicants had requested in application under Section 125 of CrPC to be provided Rs. 5,000/- per month each as monthly maintenance from the non-applicant. But, only on the ground that the applicant No.1 is a working woman and she is earning salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month, the learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance filed by the applicants. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that as the applicant No.1 is a working 4 woman and she is earning salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month, thus, the prayer for grant of maintenance with respect to the applicant No.1 is rejected and the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is affirmed. Furthermore, as the applicant No.2 who is the minor son of the applicant No.1 and non-applicant, and he is required to be maintained by the non-applicant who is his natural father, hence, it is directed that the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the applicant No.2 which shall be paid by the non-applicant per month as maintenance from 10th of July, 2025, and the same amount shall be paid by him on 10th day of every month, till the respondent No.2 attains the age of majority. Thus, the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Case No. 165/2022, with respect to the applicant No.2, is hereby set-aside. 9. The criminal revision is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar