1 2025:CGHC:33870 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1638 of 2019 1. Smt. Surja Bai Sahu W/o Asharam Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Trenga, P. S. Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Ku. Reshma Sahu D/o Asharam Sahu Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Surja Bai Sahu, R/o Village Trenga, P. S. Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3. Minor Ashish Sahu S/o Asharam Sahu Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Surja Bai Sahu, R/o Village Trenga, P. S. Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Asharam Sahu S/o Sevaram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sarfonga, Tahsil Simga, P. S. Suhela, Present Add. Village Trenga, P. S. Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rewa Shankar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.18 17:56:33 +0530 2 17.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.119/19, 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. 1,000/- per month to the applicant No.3/son till he attains the age of majority and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife and applicant No.2/daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the case revolves around a marriage between the applicant No.1 (wife) and the respondent (husband) that took place 20 years ago, resulting in three children: Ku. Sanju Sahu (deceased), Ku. Reshma Sahu (14 years old), and Ashish Sahu (8 years old). Due to alleged harassment by the in-laws, the couple moved to village Tarenga. However, the respondent's behavior towards the applicant worsened over time, including physical abuse. A tragic incident occurred on 06.02.2013, where the respondent poured kerosene oil on their daughter Ku. Sanju and set her on fire, resulting in her death. The applicant and the children were later thrown out of the house and deprived of maintenance. The applicant filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court at Baloda-Bazar, seeking maintenance. The Court partly allowed the petition, granting Rs. 1,000 per month to the youngest child, Ashish Sahu, but rejected maintenance for the applicant and her daughter, Reshma Sahu. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that order of the learned Family Court is bad in the eye of law and also in the light of the 3 settled legal propositions of law. As per law the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, and bad. It is very humbly submit that the learned Family Court had not appreciated that if the child of any mother was murdered with pouring oil and set her on fire even than she would not have any valid reason to live separate for the sake of safety of her other children. Thus the finding and the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be modified extend up to grant of maintenance to the wife and Ku. Reshma in tune of 5000/- P.M. each. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the applicant No 2 is still unmarried and she is not earning member yet she is depend up on her mother and father for her needs, but the learned Family Court erroneously interpenetrated the law, which deserves to be set aside and salary and order to be modified extend up to grant of maintenance to the Ku. Reshma in tune of 5000/- P.M. each. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.119/19, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and ordered the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant No.3/son till he attains the age of majority and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife and applicant No.2/daughter, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicants is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and 4 documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the respondent, 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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