1 2025:CGHC:40120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 64 of 2024 Smt Valentina Masih W/o Abhishek Masih Aged About 35 Years R/o L.I.G. 214, Aamdi Nagar, Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Abhishek Kumar Masih S/o Idu Masih Aged About 40 Years R/o In Front Of Ramanuj Club, Near Government Hospital, Darripara, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1019/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, by passing the impugned order, set-aside the earlier order passed under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 to wife. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant and respondent have entered into marital relationship on 11-06-2010 and out of their wedlock 2 children were born and thereafter due to adamant and cruel attitude of the respondent herein, their relationship got bitter and are residing separately. The Respondents herein have preferred an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G) for an order in their favour so as to bind applicant to pay maintenance to respondent herein and vide order dated 24-02-2020 in in Misc. Criminal Case No. 752/2018 the learned Family Court was pleased to direct the respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein has preferred an application under Section 127 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court stating that the appellant is a working as Siksha Karmi-I and is earning monthly salary and before this the applicant was working in various educational institution and thus the applicant herein is not entitled for the maintenance. Thereafter, the applicant has @led its reply and has denied the contention of the respondent and has stated that out of their wedlock two child were born, who are staying with the applicant herein and it is the applicant who is bearing all the @nancial and mental hardship. 4. The learned Family Court without appreciating the evidence and material available on record and without considering the legal and moral duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children, has passed the impugned order whereby the earlier order passed under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance to wife has been set aside. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned 3 order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no suAcient source of income and thus has no means to maintain herself and her children who are residing with the applicant. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 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 04.09.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1019/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, by passing the impugned order, set-aside the earlier order passed under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to wife, and he further submits that there is no illegality and in@rmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision @led 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 in@rmity 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. 4 10. Let a certi@ed 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