1 2025:CGHC:25134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 480 of 2017 1 - Smt. Anju Sharma And Another W/o Shri Prashant Sharma Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Nothing Dependent, R/o Kelo Bihar, Gandhi Nagar, Behind Poultry Farm Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Digvijay Ayush Sharma S/o Shri Prashant Sharma Aged About 3 Years Through His Mother Smt. Anju Sharma W/o Shri Prashant Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kelo Bihar, Gandhi Nagar, Behind Poultry Farm Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Prashant Sharma S/o Tarun Sharma, Aged About 28 Years Occupation Service Shikshakarmi, R/o Village, Kudhekela, Police Station Chhal, Tahsil- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Roop Naik, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside/ modify the order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. F-74/2016 and allow the maintenance amount as prayed in the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” 3. Briefs facts of the case are that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 29.01.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of this wedlock, applicant No. 2 was born on 06.03.2013. The parties lived together at the respondent’s house for some time, but due to dowry demands and cruelty by the respondent, applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home in 2014 and began residing with her parents. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raigarh, where interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- was granted to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to applicant No. 2 on 03.11.2015. Following a compromise on 16.06.2016, the applicants started living with the respondent again, but due to further cruelty, applicant No. 1 left the respondent’s house on 29.07.2016. The applicants filed a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 04.08.2016, which was partly allowed granting maintenance only to applicant No. 2 while rejecting applicant No.1’s claim without cogent evidence, hence this petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. F-74/2016, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed by granting maintenance of only Rs. 1,500/- to applicant No. 2 and rejecting the claim of applicant No. 1, is bad in law and liable to be set aside or modified. He further submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record, which clearly established that the respondent demanded dowry and subjected applicant No. 1 to cruelty, giving the applicants sufficient reason to live separately. The order is based merely on presumption and does not meet the just requirements of the applicants, especially considering the earlier proceedings where maintenance was rightly granted. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant sought maintenance for herself and her minor son, aged four years. It is undisputed that earlier she had filed a maintenance case against the respondent, which was closed after a compromise, and both lived together for about two months. The applicant now 4 claims she is living separately due to cruelty and dowry demands by the respondent, but no complaint or report of such cruelty has been made by her to any authority. Evidence on record, including the applicant’s own statements, shows she previously agreed to live with the respondent after a social meeting and compromise. The respondent contends that the applicant chose to stay with her parents as she is their only surviving child after her brother’s death, and tried to make the respondent live as a ghar-jamai (resident son- in-law). The trial court found that the applicant is living separately without sufficient cause and thus not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, since the minor son, aged four, lives with the applicant and the respondent has a legal and moral duty to support him, the court awarded Rs. 1,500 per month as maintenance for the child, to be paid by the respondent from 31.03.2017 until the child attains majority, with the amount to be received by the mother on his behalf. Therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan