1 2025:CGHC:884 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1466 of 2024 1 - Jhanak Lal Dhritlahare S/o Shri Lalchand Dhritlahare Aged About 25 Years Resident Of Village Nawagaon (Thuha), Tahsil Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Neetu Dhritlahare W/o Shri Jhanak Lal Dhritlahare Aged About 25 Years Resident Of C/o Parath Gendare, Village Nandgaon, Post Belsonda, Mahasamund, Tahsil And, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Atharv Dhritlahare S/o Shri Jhanak Lal Dhritlahare Aged About 05 Months, Minor Through- Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Neetu Dhritlahare Daughter Of Parath Gendare Resident Of C/o Parath Gendare, Village Nandgaon, Post Belsonda, Mahasamund, Tahsil And, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. The present CRR has been filed by the applicant Under Section 19(4) of 2 the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund ,District- Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 140/2023 whereby an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance filed by the present non-applicants partly allowed and directed the applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs. 7000/- per month to the non-applicants (Rs. 5000/- to the non-applicant no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- to non-applicant no. 2). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants filed an application before the learned Family Court Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) mentioning in it that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant no. 1 solemnized on 06.05.2022 as per the caste custom prevailing between the parties and on 09.03.2023 they were blesses with a son (non-applicant no. 2). It is mentioned in the application that soon after the marriage the wife was ill-treated by the family members of the husband with regard to the demand of dowry and they used to taunt the wife mentally and physically harassed by the family members of the husband. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the order of maintenance dated 17.10.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and procedure suffering from illegality and perversity and hence it is liable to be set-aside. The learned family court passed the order of maintenance and it has been directed by the learned Family Court to pay a sum of Rs. 7000/- to the non-applicants. He further contended that the learned Judge, Family Court failed to appreciate that the non-applicants (respondents herein) moved an application under Section 23(2) of 3 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in which the applicant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000- 2000/- to the non- applicants as an interim measure by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahasamund, C.G. so the applicant is already paying the amount which was ordered in the case of Domestic Violence Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On perusal of the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, it transpires that the petitioner is a government servant (Clerk) and is withdrawing a net salary of Rs. 26,670/- (Gross salary of Rs. 29,310/-) per month and the Learned Judge, Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondents (Rs. 5000/- to respondent no. 1 who is the wife of the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- to respondent no. 2 who is minor son of the petitioner). 6. Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973 reads as under: “397. (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.” 7. It is pertinent to mention here that the exercise of the revisional power by the High Court under Section 397 is to call for the records 4 of any inferior criminal Court and to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed by such inferior Court. 8. In the case-in-hand, this Court is of the considered view that the finding recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund is neither incorrect nor illegal. Therefore, this revision filed by the applicant deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima