1 2025:CGHC:40433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 188 of 2024 Smt. Kalpana Mahant W/o Vikram Das Mahant Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Jute Mill Chowki, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vikram Das Mahant S/o Judawan Das Aged About 56 Years Occupation - Government Servent (Water Men)(Community Health Center, Sarangarh), R/o Behind Jute Mill, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F-93/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent and marriage was solemnized with respondent on 12.05.1995 as per Hindu Custom in Champa and respondent is RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Government Servant i.e. Watermen at Community Health center Sarangarh and Having 2 son out of wedlock and one is aged about 20 years and second is aged about 16 years. The respondent doubt extra matrimonial affair and the applicant was subjected to cruelty by respondent and his family member by way of using filthy language and saying TONHI and their younger brother’s wife beaten by Kick and punch and ousted from her house. The applicant having no source of income, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 04.09.2021 before the Family Court, Raigarh for herself and stated therein that the respondent get an income of Rs 40,000/- as being Government Service. 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 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 left the matrimonial house due to the physical and mental cruelty done by the respondent. 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 27.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. F- 93/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, rejected the application 3 under Section 125 of 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. 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar