1 2025:CGHC:40121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 61 of 2024 1 - Smt. Navita Gabel W/o Rudramani Gabel, Aged About 25 Years D/o Tejram Gabel, R/o Village Bijatarai, P.O. Bijatarai, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Yash Gabel S/o Rudramani Gabel, Aged About 03 Years, 04 Months, Through Natural Gabel W/o Rudramani Gabel R/o Village Kachaharipara, Bemetara, And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Bijatarai, P.O. Bijatarai, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Rudramani Gabel S/o Rudramani Gabel, Aged About 31 Years Occupation Service Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bilai, Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh R/o Village Bilai, And Kachaharipara, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Misc. Criminal Case No. 66/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC 9led by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants 9led an application under Section 125 of CrPC and demanded maintenance on the ground that the marriage took placer on 02.06.2023 as per Hindu Customs. Out of their wedlock the applicant No.2 born on 29.03.2016, after the marriage the respondent started harassing the applicant No.1 for demand of dowry and also commented upon the applicant No.1 and abused her even the respondent committed marpeet on the instigation of mother. Thereafter the respondent thrown out the applicants from the house and as such the applicant No.1 is residing separately at her parental house along with the applicant No.2. The applicant No.1 is not having the su<cient income for maintenance. The respondent who is the husband is in service as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Bhilai and he is also having house from which he is getting rent and from other properties he is also earning and thereby the respondent is earning total Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, prayed for grant of maintenance from the respondent. 4. The learned Family Court found that the applicant No.1 has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted 3 by the applicant. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent is in service as Panchayat Secretary in Gram Panchayat Bhilai and he is also having house from which he is getting rent and from other properties he is also earning and thereby the respondent is earning total Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modi9ed. 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 22.11.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 66/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC 9led by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and in9rmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision 9led 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 in9rmity 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 certi9ed 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