1 2025:CGHC:47335 NAFR HIGH Court OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 431 of 2020 Janki Bai D/o Puniram Namdev, W/o Prabhat Namdev Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Adhbhar, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharoda District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Mali Mohalla, Ward No. 02 Near Kali Math Mandir, Madan Mahal, Police Station Madan Mahal District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) ... Applicant versus Puniram S/o Late Nankiram Namdev Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Amoda, Police Station Janjgir Now Navagarh, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MJC No. 15/2007, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125(3) of CrPC <led by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the mother of applicant <led an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 against respondent before the learned JMFC Sakti District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for maintenance to herself and her son, which was rejected vide order dated 24.03.1995. The mother applicant challenged the order by <ling a revision before the learned Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision vide order dated 03.11.1997 and granted maintenance Rs. 500/- Per month to mother of applicant and Rs. 200/- Per month to brother of applicant. But due to mistake the name of present applicant was not included and left, therefore the mother of applicant <led a criminal revision before the learned revisional Court to pass an order for daughter i.e. applicant herein also. The learned revisional Court rejected the case. 4. A petition was <led before the trial Court, Bilaspur, which was allowed and thereafter the learned revisional Court allowed the case and ordered to respondent to pay Rs. 200/- per month to applicant herein also until her marriage. Despite of above order the respondent did not pay the maintenance amount therefore the applicant preferred an application under section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court in year 2004. The notices and warrant were issued but respondent did not appear and as such the applicant could not receive the maintenance amount yet. The total arrears of amount is about Rs. 47,600/- as on year 2010 upto year of marriage. Therefore the learned Family Court has issued attachment warrant against the respondent and directed the Collector Janjgir-Champa to attach the property of respondent. But when nothing was done despite of Court order, than on the learned Family Court has on 08.05.2014 and 10.09.2014 by passing the orders, directed the Collector to submit a compliance report after attachment of property of respondent. The learned Family Court has also issued a warrant of arrest to Police Station Janjgir for arresting the respondent and same 3 was received by the police station on 04.10.2016, but same was also not complied with in true spirit. The proceeding were pending before the learned Family Court and dates were giving. Thereafter the case was <xed on 18.09.2019 before the learned Family Court. The learned Court has after hearing the applicant, rejected the case on the ground that the applicant is got married and the details of property of respondent is not given, and there is no provision to keep the matter pending for long time. 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. It is further submitted that the reasons given by the learned Family Court is perverse and unsustainable because the applicant had produced the revenue records of the respondent, in which it is clearly shown that the respondent is having the enough property from which he is getting huge amount so that he can pay the maintenance to applicant. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set- aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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