1 2025:CGHC:41858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1338 of 2024 Sahina Tarannum D/o Ikabal Husain Aged About 29 Years W/o Sekh Sahid, R/o Chata Para, Bajarang Akhada Ke Pass, Bilaspur, (C.G.) At Present Address-Mudhpar, Infront Of Post Office, Subhas Block SECL Korba Tahsil And Ditrict- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sekh Sahid S/o Late Sekh Majid Occupation Working As Higher Post At Chaukase Engineering College Bilaspur, R/o Chata Para, Bajarang Akhada Ke Pas, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Saleem Kazi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 03/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 6,000/- per RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 month to the applicant as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC against the respondent namely Sekh sahid for maintenance. The admitted fact is that the marriage of both the parties has been solemnized according to Muslim law. On the complaint of the applicant a criminal case under Section 498-A, 377/34 of the IPC has been registered against the respondent and his relatives, which is still pending. An application for reinstatement of marital relations was submitted by the respondent which was withdrawn. the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC was preferred by the applicant against respondent stating inter-alia that the applicant was married with respondent on 28.06.2018 at CRC Club SECL Korba, District Korba (C.G.) according the Muslim Law and the applicant went to her matrimonial house at Bilaspur with the respondent. It is alleged that at the time of marriage the father of the present applicant has given dowry (case money & Gold) and household articles to the family of the respondent but they were not satisfied with the articles given by the father of the present applicant. It is alleged that just after a week from the marriage the present applicant subjected to cruelty and the respondent started harassing and tortured to the present applicant for demand of dowry. That the respondent used to put pressure on the applicant to commit unnatural sexual intercourse and threatened her if she did not do so. one day on 10.09.2018 at around of 11:30 A.Μ. the burners of the gas stove in the kitchen were opened and the respondent and relatives conspired and made an unsuccessful attempt to kill the applicant. On the same day in morning the respondent had called the applicant's father and told him to take the applicant to his home. The applicant came home with her father as she felt that her life was in danger due to constant 3 physical and mental torture by the respondent and his relatives. The applicant is not able to maintain herself as she has no source of income. The respondent is working in Chouksey Engineering College Bilaspur, runs business in a shop, has given the shop and house on rent and due to this he has total income of about Rs. 1,52,000/- per month and hence the respondent is able to maintain the applicant. 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. 6,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is working in Chouksey Engineering College Bilaspur, runs business in a shop, has given the shop and house on rent and due to this he has total income of about Rs. 1,52,000/- per month and hence the respondent is able to maintain the applicant. Therefore, the order of the Family Court 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 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 03/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the 4 application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 6,000/- 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar / Preeti