1 2025:CGHC:30958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 449 of 2019 Bharati Sonkar W/o Shri Girdhari Sonkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Simga, At Present Ghathora, Police Station And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Girdhari Sonkar S/o Shri Mohan Sonkar Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No.1, Bhawani Nagar, Simga, Tahsil And Police Station Simga, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the private respondent. 2. The Instant Petition filed by the petitioner is being aggrieved with the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Cr. R. No. 31/2018, arising out of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Mungeli, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 71/2016, whereby the learned revisional Court, partly allowed the revision filed by the applicant, and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. It was submitted by petitioner that, she is the wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized about on 25.06.2015 as per the rituals and customs prevailing in their caste. It was further contended that for a period of 1 year they lived happily but on or about 4 months prior to the application the respondent started harassing her on the ground that she has not bring dowry at the time of marriage and due to that reason he started quarrel every time on small issues, due to said cruelty she was suffering physically and mentally and looking to her condition the parents of the petitioner brought her to parental home on 05.06.2016. After getting recovery when she went to her matrimonial home, the respondent denied her to enter in the house premises on the ground of dowry. As the petitioner was thrown out of the house she is living with her parents and is not able to maintain herself. The respondent is an able bodied man having agricultural land and has vegetable shop and is earning a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month from shop and from farming earning a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- per year. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent filed his reply and denied the averments made by petitioner. The learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence laid by the parties and after appreciating the same partly allowed the application filed by petitioner and granted a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance to petitioner. Being Aggrieved of the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court. 3 4. The respondent herein has filed the reply to the said revision and has denied the averments raised by the petitioner. The learned revisional Court has recorded the statement of the parties. The witnesses were examined before the learned revisional Court including the petitioner and the respondent. The learned revisional Court by passing the impugned order, has partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioner, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the evidence adduced by petitioner and she has clearly stated that, the respondent is running a business of vegetable shop and is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and also stated that, the respondent is an owner of agriculture land and is having 3 acres of agriculture land and out of that earning about 2.5 lakhs and with that regards exhibited the documents, but the learned revisional Court has not considered the said fact and granted very meager amount as maintenance. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same 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 petitioner and supports the impugned order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Cr. R. No. 31/2018, arising out of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by learned JMFC, Mungeli, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 71/2016, whereby the learned revisional Court, partly allowed the revision filed by the applicant, and ordered the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and 4 infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner/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 revisional Court, it transpires that no any good ground has been raised on merits by the petitioners’ side, thus, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned revisional 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 instant CRMP 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