1 2026:CGHC:5577 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.212 of 2024 1 - Shehjadi Begam W/o. Inayat Ali, @ Haider Ali, Aged About 25 Years R/o Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ayan S/o Inayat Ali @ Haider Ali, Aged About 10 Months Minor Legal Guardian Her Mother Shehjadi Begam. R/o Village Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Inayat Ali @ Haider Ali S/o Anwar Ali, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Smiti Jha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Smiti Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case. 348/2023, 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. 2500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants had instituted the application Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and seeking maintenance RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 amount of Rs. 10,000/- for applicant No.1, and Rs. 7,000/- for the applicant No.2. The application was based on the ground that, after some times of marriage, the respondent have given mental and physical to cruelty to the applicant, in the name of demanding the dowry, and expelled out her from his house, in the year 2020. They further contended that, they have no any source of income and the respondent have a sufficient means to maintained the applicants. 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. 2500/- 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. 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 due to ill treatment, physical and mental harassment treated by the respondent the applicant No.1 is living separately from him, and the harassment is just and sufficient ground for a lady to live separately from his husband. Therefore, the order of the Family Court 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 29.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case. 348/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and 3 directed the applicant that he has to pay Rs. 2500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as 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. 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 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