1 2026:CGHC:4489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1066 of 2024 1 - Smt. Chanchal Verma W/o Chandrakant Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o C/o Shri Pawan Deshmukh, Vijay Nagar, Vaidnath Para, Kachahari Ward, Ward No. 39, Behind Kaynat Kirana Store, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 2 - Ku. Ayushi Verma D/o Shri Chandrakant Verma Aged About 10 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chanchal Verma W/o Chandrakant Verma, R/o C/o Shri Pawan Deshmukh, Vijay Nagar, Vaidnath Para, Kachahari Ward, Ward No. 39, Behind Kaynat Kirana Store, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. 3 - Ku. Avika Verma D/o Shri Chandrakant Verma Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chanchal Verma W/o Chandrakant Verma, R/o C/o Shri Pawan Deshmukh, Vijay Nagar, Vaidnath Para, Kachahari Ward, Ward No. 39, Behind Kaynat Kirana Store, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. ... Applicant versus Chandrakant Verma S/o Shri Bhuwanlal Verma Aged About 43 Years R/o Plot No. 350 / 18, Road No. 3, Infront Of Chhaya Garden, Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G., Second Address- Flat No. 406 Sarvana Nadish Park Apartment, Near Muthyalanagar, J.P. Park, Mathikere, Bangluru 560054 Office Address- Disaster Management Institute And Safety Village South Railway Hejjala, Bangluru. ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Sweksha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 996/2019, whereby the learned RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant Nos.2 and 3, per month. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 26.02.2009 at Keval Bhavan Durg out of their wedlock two girl child here-in-after referred as applicant no.2 and 3 were born out. As per the fact of the case the applicant no.1 has solemnized her marriage and after that she came to her matrimonial house situated at Bhilai wherein her relationship with the respondent is very cardinal. The husband of the applicant is presently working on the post of Supervisor Locopilot at Banguluru South Division Railway. The applicant has gone to the respondent to live with her at Banguluru wherein in the initial days the behavour of the respondent was kind enough but all of sudden he used to filthy language to the applicant and also stated her that she has brought less dowry and for that reason he has to do over time to manage the family expenses. The respondent always consumed liquor and beat the applicant. 4. In the year 2010 the applicant was pregnant and she delivered girl child applicant no.2 all the expenses which are done at the time of birth of the girl child was done by the father of the applicant. The applicant came to the parental house wherein the father and mother of the respondent may ill treatment and stated her that she has brought less dowry and their son is in the government job and he has more opportunity instead of her. Due to this the applicant requested the 3 respondent she wants to a company of him wherein the respondent also made ill treatment to her the relationship between the applicant and respondent become harsh that in the year 2015 the applicant no.3 was born and after that the behavour of the respondent become aggressive. 5. The applicant when came to her matrimonial house on 04.11.2018 at the time of Diwali Festival and when she returned on dated 12.11.2018 the respondent family member made ill treatment and stated that she has less dowry and also beat her being aggrieved by this she came to her parental house and on dated 27.11.2018 made an written complaint before the Mahila Thana Durg by which after receiving the information the respondent came to the house of the applicant and stated that he will in rope them in a false case and also filed a section 9 H.M.A. before the trial court and after compromise taken back the applicant, but the behavior respondent never changed due to which the applicant face difficult to sustained the life with the respondent. That on 04.06.2019 the applicant has sustained injury after the ill treatment and harshly beaten by the respondent she had made complaint before P.S. Bangluru Karnataka and left accompany of respondent and came to her parental house and filed the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is registered as M.J.C. 996/2019 dated 19.08.2019, wherein the learned lower court below has framed the issue and rejected the maintenance of applicant no. 1 and allowed the maintenance of applicant no. 2 and 3. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of this case. It is 4 submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent has made ill treatment by which the applicant No.1 was aggrieved and on dated 04.06.2019 the respondent has beaten her due to which she left the house and made a complaint and came to her parental house, although the same was not considered by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the facts, and the same is liable to be modified. 7. 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 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 996/2019, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC, and directed the respondent that he has to pay the allowance of maintenance at the rate of total Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant Nos.2 and 3, per month, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 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. 5 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