1 2026:CGHC:4491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 896 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sevati Sethiya W/o Dolanchand Sethiya, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bademurma, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Vishnupriya S/o Dolanchand Sethiya, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bademurma, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Dolanchand Sethiya S/o Jaiman Sethiya, R/o Chhotemurma (Shiksha Karmi), At Present Posted At Village Nangur, Resident Of Village Hatpadmur, P.S. Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manish Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No. 130/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC, and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 as the maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants had filed an RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 application under section 125 of Cr. P. C. for granting maintenance amount that, it is admitted fact that the applicants and respondent had solemnized marriage according to Hindu Rites and Rituals custom since then the applicant no.1 and respondent were peacefully living as husband and wife together and on their wedlock the applicant no. 2 born. The application in brief is that the applicants and respondent were good relationship and after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the mental torturing the applicants in the name of demand of dowry started using the filthy language against the act of applicant, the applicants was being harassed and mentally tortured and hence is residing in rental house separately and she has no source of income, and applicants have spent very high amount for domestic expenses, education of the daughter applicant No. 2 (who is student of 12th class) and treatment etc. and applicants is unable for the same and respondent is government servant and is working as Teacher in education department and he obtained amount Rs. 45,000/- per month as salary and hence the applicants filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance amount from the respondent. The respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contention raised by the applicants and the learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, vide its order dated 18.08.2014 has granted very less maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- for applicants without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is dissatisfactory and the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. 4. Being aggrieved with the dissatisfied maintenance order dated 18.08.2014 passed by the learned Family Court, the applicants had 3 filed an application under section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court Bastar Place Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.J.C. Case No. 130/2021 for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 25,000/ but the learned Family Court vide its order dated 26.04.2024 has passed impugned order of Rs. 6,000/- instead of granting maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/- which is dissatisfactory. The learned Family Court Bastar Place Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh vide its order dated 26.04.2024 has only granted maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- for applicant No.1 which is inadequate. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has overlooked that the applicants are suffering financial crisis to survival and also suffering from low economic condition, and the applicants have left her matrimonial house due to the cruelty done by the respondent and the respondent has solemnized marriage, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, 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 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, District – Bastar Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC Case No. 130/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC, and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 as the maintenance, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 4 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 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision 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