1 2025:CGHC:36850 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 160 of 2024 Smt. Rama Kurre W/o Rajkiran Kurre Aged About 32 Years D/o U.R. Khande, C/o U.R. Khande Kumharpara, Jarhabhata Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Applicant versus Rajkiran Kurre S/o Gorelal Kurre Aged About 34 Years R/o Villege Chilhati, P.S. Sarkanda Tahsil And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Deblina Maity, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 110/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent/husband. 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 applicant and the respondent. The learned Family Court by passing the impugned order, has rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of 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 applicant was mentally tortured by the respondent, and therefore, she is not able to any work from outside and learned family Court has not appreciated that the applicant has no any source of income, her father is retired person and who is dependent on his pension. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be set-aside. 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 17.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 110/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of 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. 3 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 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