1 2025:CGHC:41474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1271 of 2024 1. Dashmat Bai W/o Maheshwar Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Goindri, P.O. Goindri, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Ameri, P.O. Ameri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajeshwari D/o Maheshwar Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dashmat Bai W/o Maheshwar Patle, R/o Village Goindri, P.O. Goindri, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Ameri, P.O. Ameri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Maheshwar Patle S/o Surendra Patle Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Goindri, P.O. Goindri, Tahsil Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, Distrtict – Mungeli (C.G.) in PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.20 10:50:20 +0530 2 Misc. Criminal Case No.203/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that Applicant No.1 and the respondent were married in the year 2010– 2011 as per Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, four daughters were born. It was submitted that the applicant No.1 and respondent lived together happily until 2018. However, after the birth of a daughter, the respondent began to mistreat Applicant No.1 and eventually threw her out of the house, alleging that she was giving birth only to female children. The respondent filed a reply before the Learned Family Court, denying all the allegations made in the application. Vide order dated 18.10.2024, the Learned Family Court dismissed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had expelled the applicants from his house solely on the ground that Applicant No.1 gave birth to girl children. The applicants currently have no source of income, whereas the respondent is employed as a mason (Rajmistri) and earns approximately Rs. 15,000 per month. Therefore, he is legally liable to pay maintenance to the applicants. The applicants have no 3 family members to support or take care of them, the responsibility for their maintenance lies upon the respondent. The learned Family Court dismissed the application without properly considering the statements and evidence submitted by the applicants, which renders the order arbitrary and contrary to law. Thus, the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 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 applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant No. 1 is not found entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent, as she has failed to establish that she is residing separately for a justifiable reason due to the respondent’s abandonment, and has also failed to prove that the respondent is the father of Applicant No. 2 (the daughter). As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 4 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti