1 2025:CGHC:41614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 273 of 2025 1 - Smt. Soniya Yadav W/o Shivkumar Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ajirma, P/s And Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Kartik Yadav S/o Shivkumar Yadav Aged About 6 Years Miner Thorough Natural Guardian Mother Soniya Yadav, R/o Village Ajirma, P/s And Tahsil Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shivkumar Yadav S/o Satiram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pahadkhadua, Post - Jhingo, P/s And Tahsil Rajpur, Distt. - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2021, 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. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the marriage of respondent was solemnized with the applicant No. 1 in 2014 as per the Hindu rites and RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 rituals and out of their wedlock the applicant No. 2 was born in Mission Hospital Ambikapur through major surgery operation, the respondent came to the hospital and threatened to applicant No. 1 that, the respondent will not keep the applicants with him because due to major surgery, the applicant No.1 will not able to perform daily work in his village. Even though, the applicant No. 1 came to her matrimonial house along with her son but the respondent was used to commit Marpit with applicants and demanded 1 lakhs rupees from the applicant No. 1 saying that, then only the respondent will keep her at his house. The respondent has also locked the door of his house and went to Ambikapur, then the applicants were living in the baramda adjacent to the house of respondent. After two months, the respondent return to his house and with the help of his elder brother the applicant No. 1 was forcefully outstayed from his house and send to her parental house. On 19.01.2021, the applicant No. 1 made complaint to the Women Police Station Ambikapur which was registered in Crime No. 3/2021. The respondent is having 10 acre agricultural lands and he is also earning 5 lacks rupees per year from the agriculture produce, the respondent is also working in the private company and getting salary of Rs. 12,000/-per month but he is not giving maintenance to the applicants therefore the applicants filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below as the applicants are not having any source of income. 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. 3 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. It is further submitted that the respondent has not produced any documentary evidence that the applicant No.1 has performed marriage with one Sandeep whereas the applicant No.1 and her other witnesses have clearly stated that the marriage of the applicant No.1 and respondent were solemnized as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. Therefore, the order of the Family Court 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 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 be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar