1 2025:CGHC:40427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.152 of 2024 1 - Smt. Saroj Bai W/o Raju Chaturvedi Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Bhathri, Post Office-Takhatpur, Police Station-Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sujal Kumar S/o Raju Chaturvedi Aged About 13 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Saroj Bai W/o Raju Chaturvedi, Caste-Satnami, R/o Village- Bhathri, Post Office-Takhatpur, Police Station-Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Moni D/o Raju Chaturvedi Aged About 11 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Saroj Bai W/o Raju Chaturvedi, Caste-Satnami, R/o Village- Bhathri, Post Office-Takhatpur, Police Station-Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Raju Chaturvedi S/o Late Gyandas Chaturvedi Aged About 50 Years Caste- Satnami, Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village-Bhathri, Post Office-Takhatpur, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. K.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli , District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.153/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent is the husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicants No.2 and 3. The marriage of applicant No.1 and respondent was performed on 01.01.2004. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 learned Family Court, stating therein that the marriage of respondent and Smt. Ganga Bai was performed prior to 25 years, but as no child was born from the wedlock of respondent and Ganga Bai, therefore with the consent of Ganga Bai, the respondent performed Chudi marriage with the applicant No.1 on 01.01.2004 and out of their wedlock, the respondents No.2 and 3 have been born. After sometime of birth of applicant No.2, the applicant No.1 came to know that in Kotwar record, the name of Ganga Bai is recorded as mother of applicant No.2. The applicant No.1 asked from the respondent for recording the name of Ganga Bai as mother of applicant No.2, then the respondent started beating to the applicant No.1 by saying that he was married with the applicant No.1 only for getting children. The respondent has also poured kerosene oil upon the applicant No.1 for killing her, but the villagers have saved the life of the applicant No.1. On 02.08.2008 the applicant No.3 was born and after birth of applicant No.3, the respondent has ousted the applicants from the house, therefore they are living separately. The applicant No.1 is handicapped by her one leg and she is not able to maintain herself and her children. The respondent is holding agricultural land, thereby earning Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum and he is posted as Government Teacher, and getting monthly salary, despite this, the respondent is not giving single penny towards maintenance of the applicants, therefore, the applicants have filed application for grant of maintenance. 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said application and has denied the averments raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned Family Court including the applicants and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, 3 has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicants for grant of maintenance on the ground that the respondent has given 75 Decimal land to the applicants for their 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. It is further submitted that the respondent is posted as Government Teacher, and getting monthly salary, despite this, he is not giving any single penny towards maintenance of the applicants. 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 applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants, 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 infirmity 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 certified 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