1 2025:CGHC:32613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 129 of 2022 1 - Smt. Asha Chatarjee W/o Abhinav Chatarjee Aged About 30 Years R/o C/o Ashim Kumar, House No. 1441, Shantinagar Raod 30, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Avni Chatarjee D/o Abhinav Chatarjee Aged About 2 Years Applicant No. 2 Is Minor Through Her Mother Smt. Asha Chatarjee ( Applicant No. 1), R/o C/o Ashim Kumar, House No. 1441, Shantinagar Raod 30, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Abhinav Chatarjee S/o Rakesh Chatarjee Aged About 31 Years R/o Christian Colony, Civil Ward No. 5, House No. 1470 Damoh, Tahsil And District- Damoh (Madhya Pradesh) ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 999/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of the applicant No.1 was solemnized with respondent on 02.05.2012 at church Sector-6 Bhilai according to Christian custom and rites. The parents and relatives of the applicant No.1 had given costly items and cash worth Rs. 2,60,000/- at the time of marriage. The applicant No.1 went to respondent's house at Damoh (M.P.) after marriage and were pursuing their marital life. During course of their wedlock, the applicant No.1 gave birth to a girl child who is applicant No.2 as referred above. The respondent was of arrogant, short tempered and doubtful nature due to only child of his parents. He misbehaved with the applicant No.1 and used filthy language and tortured her mentally and physically during the span of their wedded life. The applicant No.1 used to bear all tortures of the respondent with patience and she brought this matter in knowledge of her in-laws but nothing was done in her favour. The respondent ignored the applicant No.1 and her in-laws and sister-in-law tortured her mentally and physically during her pregnancy period. That the respondent forcefully sent the applicant to her parental home for delivery at Bhilai on 10/11/2013. The respondent and his parents made false allegation against the applicant No.1 that she has taken her Stridhan without their permission. The applicant No.1 along with her child went to her marital home at Damoh on 23/12/2014 but her father-in-law has made false report against her in Kotwali Damoh and an application was sent to S.P. Damoh. Police of Damoh found their report to be false after investigation 3 and no action was taken against the applicant No.1. The respondent was filed Divorce petition in Family Court Damoh M.P. whose case No. is 166A/2015, which has been decided by the learned Family Court Damoh (M.P.) and passed the divorce decree. Hence, the applicant No. 1 is residing with her child in her parental home at Bhilai. The respondent has refused to take any responsibility of his wife (Applicant No. 1) and daughter (Applicant No. 2). The applicants preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court Durg (C.G.) for grant of maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence and the statement of the parties, partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- in favor of applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- in favour of applicant No.2. 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 by the applicant. The learned Family Court has misappreciated and misapprehended the entire documents and evidence on record in passing impugned order which is liable to be modified and the amount of maintenance Rs. 10,000/- each to be granted in favour of the applicants. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 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 30.12.2021 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 999/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the 4 applicant No.2 as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed 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 infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a certified 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