1 2025:CGHC:40119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 76 of 2024 Brihaspati Bai W/o Arun Kumar Banerjee, Caste Satnami, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Hardi Vishal, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Arun Kumar Banerjee S/o Anandram Banerjee, Aged About 34 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Hardi Vishal, Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vishvanath Prasad Shrivas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vishvanath Prasad Shrivas, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 286/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC :led by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month, stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of October, 2006 at Village Hardi Vishal. After the marriage, the applicant went to the house of the respondent for performing matrimonial obligations and out of their wedlock, one daughter Anchal, aged about 15 years and son Fardin Kumar, aged about 13 years have been born. After sometime of marriage, the respondent started harassing the applicant and he always used to beat her. The respondent developed illicit relationship with another one namely Damini Tandon and he kept as his wife and thereafter he ousted the applicant from the matrimonial hose, therefore, the applicant is living in her parental house. The respondent is working as Wends Operator W-4 in NTPC, Seepat, thereby used to get salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month, whereas the applicant has no source of income, despite this the respondent is not paying the single penny to the applicant for her maintenance, therefore, she :led application for grant of maintenance. 4. The respondent herein has :led 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 :led by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The 3 learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a lady having no source of income at present and non-applicant is a Wends Operator W-4 in NTPC, Seepat and used to earn sum of Rs. 45,000/- per month, but despite the said fact the learned Family Court has awarded only Rs.5,000/- to the applicant as maintenance which is very low and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modi:ed. 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 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 286/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC :led by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance, 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. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certi:ed copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar