1 2026:CGHC:5771 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1248 of 2024 1 - Smt. Kajal Gupta W/o Yugal Kishore Gupta Aged About 22 Years Caste Baniya (Gupta), Resident Of C/o. Manohar Lal Gupta, Nayapara Ward No. 03, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh 2 - Divyansh Gupta S/o Yugal Kishore Gupta, Aged About 10 Months, Caste Baniya (Gupta), Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kajal Gupta Wife Of Yugal Kishore Gupta (Applicant No. 1), Caste Baniya (Gupta), Resident Of C/o. Manohar Lal Gupta, Nayapara Ward No. 03, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Yugal Kishore Gupta S/o Ramesh Gupta Aged About 28 Years Caste Baniya, Resident Of C/o. Adarsh Nagar, Near Thana Gate, Kawardha, Tahsil And District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case. 18/2024, 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. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 1,500/- per month to the applicant No.2 as maintenance. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that an application under Section 125 of CRPC was filed by the applicants, who happened to be wife and minor son of respondent claiming total maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for the applicants. 4. It is pleaded in the application that the marriage of applicant No.1 and respondent was performed according to the Hindu Customs on 04-05- 2022 and after the marriage, they started residing in Kawardha at the house of husband, whereas for 06 months the relationship between husband and wife was good and after that some disputes started between them and the son i.e. applicant No.2 got birth on 05-03-2023, after that the husband started ill-treating the wife and he started consuming liquor daily and started beating to his wife and some times, he even armed with Hasiya tried to assault wife and also used to abuse the wife and this used to happen in the day to day life of the wife and when the wife enquired about the cause of the same, she got to know that earlier to her marriage the husband was in love with another lady and cause of that he do not love the applicant No.1/wife and used to threatened the wife to give divorce, whereas the wife tried to convince the husband to start living properly with the family and at that time, the husband beaten the wife badly and thrown her out of the house and thereafter the wife compelled to live in her father's wife from Feb.2023 and then she delivered her child in her parental house and from that date, she is compelled to reside in her father's house, whereas she is unable to bear her as well as the son expenses and her husband has denied to give any kind of maintenance to her and used to threaten 3 her, whereas the husband is a capable person who earns about 90000/- per month from truck business and is able to maintain the wife and son and has intentionally denied to maintain. 5. 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. 1,500/- 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. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. 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. 4 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