1 2025:CGHC:45844 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 8 of 2020 1. Guleshwari @ Gulappa Patel W/o. Ishwar Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village- Chuhka, Current R/o- Patora Post-Karesara P.S. - Than Khamhariya District- Bemetara Chhattisgarh, 2. Ku. Maya Patel D/o. Ishwar Patel Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother(Applicant No. 1) R/o. Village- Chuhka, Current R/o- Patora Post- Karesara P.S. - Than Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, 3. Ku. Tarani Patel D/o- Ishwar Patel Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother (Applicant No. 1) R/o. Village- Chuhka, Current R/o- Patora Post- Karesara P.S. - Than Khamhariya, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus Ishwar Patel S/o- Dashrath Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village- Chuhka, Post- Hatraka P.S.- Than Khamhriya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being 2 aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal M.J.C. No.82/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,500/- per month to applicant No.1, Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No.2 and Rs. 4,500/- to applicant No.3. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant No.1 and the respondent entered into wedlock on 01.06.2009. After a few years of marriage, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were born out of their wedlock. In the meantime, certain conflicts began to arise between the applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband), leading to persistent mental and emotional torment of the applicant by the respondent and his family members. It is alleged that the applicant was harassed and taunted by her in-laws on the ground that she was the mother of a girl child and unable to give birth to a boy. Due to this continued harassment, the applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a complaint against the respondent and his parents before the Women’s Cell, which was registered under Section 155 Cr.P.C. as a matrimonial dispute. The parties were summoned, but the respondent refused to take the applicant back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, on 05.03.2019, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance under various heads. After recording the evidence of both parties, the Learned Family Court, Bemetara, without proper appreciation of the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.10 11:41:11 +0530 3 evidence, passed an order dated 27.09.2019, directing the respondent to pay Rs.4,500/- per month to the applicants. Aggrieved by the meager maintenance amount, the applicants are filing this revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance awarded. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Bemetara, is contrary to law and deserves to be modified in accordance with the evidence on record. The respondent is not willing to reside peacefully with the applicants. In fact, he coerced Applicant No. 1 to leave her matrimonial home. Moreover, during the proceedings before the Women’s Cell, he out rightly refused to take back the applicants. From the very beginning of the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent, and soon after the birth of their daughters, Applicant Nos. 2 and 3, the applicant was subjected to constant harassment and mental torture by her in-laws. They expressed dissatisfaction over the birth of girl children and allegedly began tormenting her on a daily basis, with the intention of forcing her out so that the respondent could remarry. Over the years, the in-laws continuously harassed Applicant No. 1. She endured this cruelty only for the sake of her children, Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. However, when the situation became unbearable and the harassment crossed all limits, she had no option but to leave her matrimonial home. Applicant No. 1 is now solely responsible for the upbringing, education, and day-to-day expenses of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, 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. 6. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned within a period of 48 hours for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti