1 2025:CGHC:44608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1084 of 2025 1 - Smt. Omin Dheemar W/o Komal Dheemar Aged About 27 Years R/o Milan Baba Darbar, Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 06 Dhanora, Outpost Padmanabhpur, Thana City Kotwali, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Ku. Keshari Dheemar D/o Komal Dheemar Aged About 4 Years Now 08 Year, (Minor) Through Natural Mother Smt. Omin Dheemar, R/o Milan Baba Darbar, Bajrang Chowk, Ward No. 06 Dhanora, Outpost Padmanabhpur, Thana City Kotwali, Durg, Tehsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Applicants versus Komal Dheemar S/o Late Udala Aged About 31 Years R/o Saraswati Nagar, Ward No. 34, Chandi Mandir, Nayapara, Durg, District Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dt. 30.07.2025 Passed by Third Additional Principal Judge Family court Durg in Misc. Criminal case No. 818/2021 (Annexure A-1) and further be pleased to RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 grant appropriate maintenance amount to the applicant No. 1 and may kindly be pleased to enhance reasonable maintenance amount to the applicant No. 2 under the facts and circumstance of the case in the ends of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between applicant no.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2014 according to Hindu rites, and out of the said wedlock a female child, applicant no.2, was born on 28.05.2017. And after the birth of the female child, the behaviour of the respondent and his family members changed as they were desirous of a male child, applicant no.1 was subjected to cruelty, forced to participate in witchcraft practices and tormented in various ways. On account of unbearable harassment, she lodged a report on 01.09.2020 at the Mahila Police Station, but was advised to approach the Court, and ultimately, due to continued cruelty, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter on 02.08.2021. As her father’s financial condition was not sufficient to support them, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg on 09.09.2021 seeking maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- per month. However, by order dated 30.07.2025, the learned Family Court rejected her claim on the ground that she had deserted her husband without reasonable cause, and only a meagre sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month was awarded towards maintenance of the minor child. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have preferred the present revision petition. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned family Court has failed to appreciate the material on record and evaluate the evidence in its proper perspective, thereby arriving at an erroneous conclusion in rejecting the claim of the applicants. It is urged that the family Court ignored the fact that the respondent is a habitual drinker who used to quarrel under its influence and that the applicant was constantly subjected to physical and mental cruelty, including taunts that she belonged to a beggar’s family. It is further submitted that at the time of passing of the impugned order, applicant no.2 had attained the age of 8 years and was a school- going child incurring expenses towards fees and stationery, which were not taken into account. The family Court also committed a grave error in relying upon the income certificate exhibited by the respondent without proper proof by its issuer, and thereby wrongly assessed his income at Rs. 2,100/- per week, whereas in fact his monthly salary was Rs. 15,000/-. It is further submitted that while the respondent has no other liability except his aged mother, the applicant is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining herself and the minor child, including their accommodation, medical and educational expenses, which aspects were completely ignored. Thus, the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon a careful consideration of the pleadings 4 and evidence adduced by both parties, rightly held that applicant no.1 had deserted the respondent without any sufficient and reasonable cause, and therefore was not entitled to claim maintenance for herself under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court further took into account the overall facts and circumstances, including the financial capacity of the respondent, and in the best interest of the minor child, reasonably awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month towards the maintenance of applicant no.2. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 has been passed after due appreciation of evidence and law. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan