1 2025:CGHC:29211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1277 of 2019 Smt. Savita Tripathi W/o Vishradhhanand Tripathi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Purani Basti, Near Pond Bhanpuri, Khamtarai Raipur, Teh. And Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vishradhanand Tripathi S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Tripathi, R/o Village Tendubhatha, Post Mohgaon, Teh. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 482/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 3000/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the non-applicant and applicant are husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 12.07.1989 as per social norms and traditions. The non-applicant used to fight with applicant unnecessarily, leaving her alone in a sick condition and lived outside for several days and her daughter was married by non-applicant without asking the applicant, and her marriage is severed. His family have done cruelty to the applicant due to which the applicant fell ill. As there was no one to take care of her she had moved to her daughter's house. As a result, she has to live separately and had preferred the application for grant of maintenance at Family Court Raipur. non- applicant herein is a Priest and astrologer and he also have 40 acers land and a house, and gets income of Rs. 10 lacs and also gets income of Rs. 10,000/- from house rent. Applicant herein had prayed for Rs.25,000/- month for maintenance. 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. 3000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a lady having no source of income at present and non-applicant is a priest and 3 astrologer and he also has 40 acres land and a house, and gets income of Rs. 10 lacs and also gets income of Rs. 10,000/- from house rent, but despite the said fact the learned Family Court has awarded only Rs.3,000/- to the applicant as maintenance which is very low and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same 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 05.09.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 482/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance, 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. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 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 for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar