1 2025:CGHC:47326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1133 of 2025 1 - Smt. Madhuri W/o Mohit @ Rakesh Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o M I G- 01, Saini House No. 360, Near Shankaracharya College, Amdi Nagar Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Ku. Monishka D/o Mohit @ Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 9 Months, Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Madhuri, R/o M I G- 01, Saini House No. 360, Near Shankaracharya College, Amdi Nagar Hudco, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G. ... Applicants versus Mohit @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Pyarelal Aged About 36 Years R/o In Front Of State Bank, Budhapara Road, Balod, P.S. Tahsil And District- Balod, C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1524/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC <led by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants <led an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance, stating therein that the marriage of applicant No. 1 and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Baijnathpara, Raipur on 05.01.2021 and after marriage, the applicant No. 1 went to the house of respondent for performing matrimonial obligations, but after the marriage, the respondent and other in-laws family members used to subject her to cruelty and they used to tease her and commenting against the applicant No. 1 and her parental family members. Meantime, the applicant No. 1 become pregnant and during pregnancy, the harassment and cruelty was extending day-to-day. The respondent has avoided to provide medical check-up and proper treatment to the respondent No. 1 during pregnancy and she was ousted by the respondent from the in- laws house, therefore the applicant No. 1 is living separately in her parental house along with her minor children. It was further speci<cally contended by the applicant No. 1 that the respondent is working as contractor in B.S.N.L. and property dealing work and thereby used to earn Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and he is also holding 3 acres agricultural land and getting Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum income from agricultural land, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the applicant and her minor children, whereas the applicant No. 1 is a household lady and she has no source of income, therefore she <led application for grant of maintenance. 4. After issuance of notice, the respondent <led the reply and denied the averments made by the applicants. 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. 1,500/- 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 3 order is arbitrary and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Family Court Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 is required make articles, food, treatment expenses, house rent, ration, food grains, clothes, stationary, treatment expenses etc. and similarly the applicant No.2 who is presently aged about 4 years and she is required school fee, uniform, shoe, tuition fee, books, proper healthy foods etc. and those needs are not possible to be ful<lled in maintenance awarded in favour of applicant No.2. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modi<ed. 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. 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