1 2025:CGHC:31307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 164 of 2022 1 - Smt. Chandani Sahu W/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Lakhagarh, Police Station Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Pinki Sahu D/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 8 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandani Sahu , Resident Of Lakhagarh, Police Station Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Pankaj Sahu S/o Kunjbihari Sahu Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chandani Sahu , Resident Of Lakhagarh, Police Station Pithora, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Kunjbihari Sahu S/o Deenbandhu Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Jampali , Police Station Jharband, District Bargarh Odisha. ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Misc. Criminal Case No. 53/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, District – Mahasamund, dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants No. 2 and 3. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant No.1 and non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 28.02.2011 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mahasamund and submitted that after marriage, the applicant No. 1 went to the house of non-applicant, but right from marriage, the non- applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, but the applicant No. 1 was bearing all the cruelty with a hope that the behaviour of her in-laws will change in future, but the behaviour of her in-laws was never changed. On 23.01.2012, the applicant No. 2 born and after birth of applicant No. 2, the non-applicant and his family members refused to keep the applicants, therefore the applicant No. 1 lodged report before the Police Station. The non- applicant and other in-laws forced for withdrawal of complaint and assured that they will not harass the applicant No.1, therefore, the applicant No.1 withdrawn the complaint/case pending before the Court and again she went to the house of non-applicant and in the year 2013, the applicant No. 3 born. Later on again in the year 2017, the non- applicant started cruelty with the applicant No.1 and ousted her from the matrimonial house by doubting upon her character. It was further submitted that the applicants are living in the parental house of applicant 3 No.1 and they have no source of income, though the non-applicant is holding 10 acres agricultural land and also having tractor-trolley. The non-applicant is working in Altos Company as Network Marketing, despite this, he is not paying single penny towards maintenance of the applicants, therefore they 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 applicants. 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, has dismissed the application under Section 125 of CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC with respect to applicants No. 2 and 3, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to the applicants No. 2 and 3. 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 subjected to cruelty by her husband/non-applicant and her in-laws while she was living in her matrimonial house and ultimately she was ousted by them from the matrimonial house. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 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 4 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 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