1 2026:CGHC:4490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 961 of 2024 Smt. Mona Yadav W/o Vijay Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village- Ward No. 36, Beside New Arvind Jweller, Bhadrapara Balco, Thana Balco, District - Korba (C.G.), Present Address - Infront Of Railway Station, Champa, Thana And Tahsil - Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Vijay Yadav S/o Jai Yadav Aged About 32 Years Caste - Yadav, R/o. Village - Ward No. 36, Beside New Arvind Jweller, Bhadrapara Balco, Thana Balco, District – Korba (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anubhuti Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 210/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant has filed application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court concerned, stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in on RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 03.03.2019 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Village Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). After the marriage the applicant and respondent lived for about few days thereafter the family members of respondent started demanding money and the mother of the applicant belongs to Shriwas Caste therefore, the family members of respondent discriminated her. Anyhow the family members of the respondent tried to separate respondent from applicant and they want to get the respondent remarry for second time therefore they are harassing the applicant to leave the house. The applicant tried to solve the family dispute but the family members of the respondent was not ready to solve the family dispute therefore due to pressure of family members of respondent, the respondent has filed divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Korba (C.G.). The applicant has disclosed all the facts before the learned Family Court concerned. 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 dismissed 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 learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is having no source of income and the respondent is permanent employee of Balco Plant but the learned Family Court has 3 dismissed the application filed by the applicant. 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 applicant and supports the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 210/2022, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 21.02.2025, the parties were appeared before the Mediation Centre of this Court on 05th of March, 2025 to amicably settle their dispute, but as per the Mediation Report dated 09.04.2025, the dispute could not be settled between the parties and the mediation was failed. 9. 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. 4 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar