1 2025:CGHC:31327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 253 of 2020 1 - Smt. Padammala Ramteke W/o Yogesh Ramteke Aged About 32 Years R/o Kushwaha Lane Shantinagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Miss Jya Ramteke D/o Yogesh Ramteke Aged About 4 Years Being Minor Represented Through Smt. Padmmala, Ramteke ( Mother ), R/o Kushwaha Lane Shantinagar Ward Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Original Applicants In The Trial Court ), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Yogesh Ramteke S/o Benuram Ramteke Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Lakhanpuri Tahsil Charama District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Original Non - Applicants In The Trial Court ), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 2 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Family Court, Bastar Place, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.72/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.2 only. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and applicant no.2 is daughter born out of their wed lock. The respondent herein deserted the applicants for demand of dowry. Thereafter, the applicants herein filed application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, perusal of record allowed the application in part with respect to applicant No.2 and granted the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month only the applicant No.2 and dismissed the application so for concern with applicant no.1 vide order dated 18.10.2019. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad in law, thus liable to be set aside. The order passed by the learned trial Court is not a well reasoned order and the order is baseless and against the law. The learned trial Court has totally ignored the pleadings of the applicants and evidence adduce by the applicants in their favour. Learned Family Court has one side held that the respondent is having the illicit relation 3 with another women and another side held that present applicant is not ready to leave with the respondent, such finding the bad in law and natural justice. Lastly, the learned Family Court has held that the applicants have failed to prove the income of the respondent ignoring that in this regard the present applicants have produced the photo graph of shop of respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to applicant No.2 observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 4 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil