1 2025:CGHC:29141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1309 of 2019 Shrawan Kumar Vastrakar S/o Bhagwat Prasad Vastrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Pendari, Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur Chhattigarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Reeta Vastrakar D/o Narayan Vastrakar Aged About 25 Years W/o Shrawan Vastrakar, R/o Village Bharari, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.162/2019, arising out of order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 First Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.7/2015, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act and affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is admitted fact that the applicant and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2012 and out of their wedlock, a daughter namely Kumar Prarthana Vastrakar was borne out and at present the applicant and non-applicant are living separately. On 04.06.2014, the non- applicant left the matrimonial house and thereafter on 05.06.2014, she lodged the FIR against the applicant along with the parents of the applicant and on the basis of which, the offence under Section 498-A, 506, 323/34 of IPC were registered. The main allegation in the FIR is that the applicant and other in-laws/family members teased her by saying Tonhi. It is further submitted that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in which, the learned Family Court has passed order on 04.08.2016 and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent and daughter. Thereafter further an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent, in which, the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount by Rs. 4000/- vide order dated 03.07.2019. Thereafter, in the year 2015, the respondent filed an application 3 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and by order dated 03.06.2019, the learned trial Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant filed an appeal under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By order dated 21.08.2019, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court on 03.06.2019. Hence the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.08.2019 is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent and minor daughter are getting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4000/- from the applicant as per order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, therefore award of maintenance amount in a proceedings under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is bad in the eye of law. Further, the learned trial Court ought of have considered that the applicant is pursuing his Law Degree and he is required to pay his study fees as well. Also, the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no source of income and he is hardly paying the study fee by borrowing the amount from his relatives and that for want of source of income, the applicant is not able to pay the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of respondent. 4 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which, no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned trial Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicant under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act affirming the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, Bilaspur observing that as per the provisions of Section 20 (1) (D) of the Act, the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction to grant relief under the Act even after any order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any other law in force at that time. This opinion was given by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur in the judgment of Rajesh Kurre Vs. Safurabai, laws (chh) 2008 - 11-22 High Court Of Chhattisgarh. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court while affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I am of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil