1 2025:CGHC:29210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1284 of 2019 Durgeshwari Dewangan S/o Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dewangan (Sanju Dewangan) Aged About 31 Years Caste Kostha, R/o Village Kera, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, Present Resident At Village Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sanjeev Kumar Dewangan S/o Agnu Dewangan Aged About 27 Years Cast Kostha, R/o Village Kera, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. T.R. Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.R. Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 94/2018 CGJC-030001642018, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, and as per the pleadings of the applicant she was married with the respondent as per the Hindu rites and ritual on 19.04.2016 and after the marriage in the first night itself the respondent came before the applicant in a drunken condition and told her that he does not like her he love with some other girl. The respondent because of the aforesaid reason harassed her and has demanded her dowry from her. The applicant and her family members made efforts to settled the dispute but the respondent has not changed his behavior. The respondent and his family members taken the ornaments of the applicant and has relinquished her from the house on 10.05.2017. The applicant thereafter lodged the report at P.S. Nawagarh. That according to the applicant the respondent is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from driving the vehicle and is also earning money from agriculture therefore she is entitled to get maintenance amount of Rs. 4500/- from non applicant. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. 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 rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of 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. It is further submitted that the applicant is a legally married wife of the 3 respondent, therefore, it is a moral duty also to the respondent apart from legal duty to maintain his wife but the learned Family Court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC. 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 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 94/2018 CGJC-030001642018, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 10. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar