1 2025:CGHC:40434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 176 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shradha Sharma W/o Ashish @ Banti Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o Lakholi Chowk, Ward No. 35, City/tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Ansh Kumar Sharma S/o Ashish @ Banti Sharma Aged About 5 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Shradha Sharma, R/o Lakholi Chowk, Ward No. 35 City/tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Ashish @ Banti Sharma S/o Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 33 Years Occupation Railway Contractor, R/o Ward No. 11, Behind Ganj, Kharsiya, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 34/2020, whereby the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 learned Family Court, 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.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants have filed application under Section 125 of CrPC and seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- for applicant No.2, and Rs. 5,000/- for Court expenses. The applicant was based on the ground that, after some time of marriage, the respondent has given mental and physical cruelty to the applicants, in the drunken condition and also harassing her in the name of demanding dowry, and expelled out her from his house, in the year 2019, they further contended that they have no source of income and the respondent has a sufficient source of income to maintain the applicants. 4. The learned Family Court found that the applicant No.1 has not proved her case and the learned Family Court partially allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favor of applicant No. 2 and not for applicant No. 1 and thereby the learned Family Court passed impugned order. 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 Judge completely ignored the fact that the applicant No.1 has no source of income and the respondent has sufficient source of income to maintain 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 23.01.2024 passed by the learned 3 Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 34/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, 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.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