1 2025:CGHC:29209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1285 of 2019 1. Smt. Roshani Yadav W/o Dayanand Yadadv Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), Caste Yadav , P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, Present Resident At Village Kharod P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Kumari Pragaya Yadav D/o Dayanand Yadav Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Graduation Mother Smt. Roshani Yadav . Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), Caste Yadav , P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, Present Resident At Village Kharod P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Dayanand Yadav S/o Dilharan Yadav Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Jarwe (B), P.S. And Tahsil Balouda, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. Present Resident At Jai Bhart School Near Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Jangir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. A.V. Shridhar, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sangeeta Kashyap, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Sangeeta Kashyap, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2018, CGJC-030003512018, whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of total maintenance amount of Rs 8000/- (5000/- for applicant No.1 and 3000/- for applicant No.2) the case registered as miscellaneous criminal case No. 163/2018. As per the pleadings of the applicants the applicant No.1 was married with non-applicant and the applicant No.2 is the daughter born out of the wedlock of the applicant No.1 and non- applicant. The non-applicant started cruel behavior with the applicant No.1 after the marriage demanding Rs. 1 lacs as a dowry. The non- applicant harassed her because she has given birth to female child and has forcefully relinquished her from the house. The applicants contended that they have no any source of income for maintenance and the non- applicant is having sufficient source of income as he is a Teacher in Jai Bharat School Janjgir and is also having Agricultural land. Per contra the non-applicant stated in his reply that the brother of the applicant No.1 is in Army who has lodged the false complaint against him. The non- applicant wants to reside with the applicants peacefully but the applicant No.1 denied to reside with him without any just and cogent reason. The applicant No.1 doing the job of teaching in private School and is also operating the printing press of her father from where she is earning sufficient money therefore the application filed by the applicants are liable to be rejected. During the trial the applicants examined herself and has produced two other witnesses namely Firat Ram and Milap Ram in support of their claim and the non-applicant examined himself as a 3 witness and has produced two other witnesses namely Mahavir and Hemant. After recording the evidence of the witnesses the learned Family Court has come to the conclusion that the applicants have failed to prove that the non-applicant has forcefully relinquished the applicants assaulting her. The learned Family Court further held that the applicant No.1 is a teacher who is an educated women having the technical qualification therefore she is competent to maintained herself. After giving the aforesaid findings the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 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 minor daughter of the non-applicant who is presently aged about 7 years, only on the ground that the applicant No.1 is a teacher who is an educated women having the technical qualification therefore she is competent to maintained herself, but in fact there is no source of income of the applicant No.1 to maintain herself and her daughter (applicant No.2) because she was not receiving any salary as she was serving as a teacher free of cost. It is further submitted that the applicant No. 2 is a minor daughter of the non- applicant presently aged about 7 years is also required to be maintained by the 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 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2018, CGJC-030003512018, whereby the learned Family 4 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 is posted as a teacher in Jai Bharat School, Janjgir, and he also earns some income from agricultural land. Hence, the applicants had requested in application under Section 125 of CrPC to be provided Rs. 8,000/- per month (5000/- for applicant No.1 and 3000/- for applicant No.2) as monthly maintenance from the non-applicant. But, only on the ground that the applicant No.1 is a teacher who is an educated women having the technical qualification and she is competent to maintained herself, the learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance filed by the applicants, which cannot be justified without adjudicating upon the fact whether she has any source of income to maintain herself and her children. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no source of income of the applicant No.1 to maintain herself and her daughter (applicant No.2) because she was not receiving any salary as she was serving as a teacher free of cost, moreover, as the applicant No. 2 is a minor daughter of the non-applicant presently aged about 7 years, and she is required to be maintained by the non-applicant who is his natural father, hence, it is directed that the maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- is awarded to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,500/- is awarded to the applicant No.2, which shall be 5 paid by the non-applicant per month as maintenance from 15th of July, 2025, and the same amount shall be paid by him on 15th day of every month. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 163/2018, CGJC-030003512018, is hereby set-aside. 9. In view of the above, the instant criminal revision is allowed. 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