1 CGHC010178092025 2026:CGHC:37118 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 600 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sunita Goyan W/o Suraj Goyan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Bhandarpara, Latori, Police Chowki Latori, Police Station Jainagar District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Shourya Goyan S/o Suraj Goyan Aged About 5 Years (The Applicant Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Goyan) R/o Village- Bhandarpara, Latori, Police Chowki Latori, Police Station Jainagar District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Suraj Goyan S/o Hiralal Goyan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Davansara, Post Davna, Police Station Bhaiyathan, Tahsil Orgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 144/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the applicants, and directed the respondent that he has to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No. 2 as maintenance, and not for the applicant No.1. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the applicants filed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC before Family court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G) inter alia on the ground that the marriage between RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 applicant No.1 and respondent had solemnized in year 2017 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals and after marriage the applicant No.1 went to her matrimonial house and from said marriage applicant No.2 was born. It was averred that after birth of applicant No.2 health of applicant No.1 deteriorated due to which she was unable to perform household work and due to this behavior respondent used to assault applicant No.1 and even demanded to bring dowry. The respondent and her parents continuously used to harass applicant No.1 for bringing dowry and due to continuous harassment the applicant No.1 lodged complaint before Family welfare Centre, Surajpur where after mediation respondent decided to take back applicant No.1 back with her but again due rash behavior of respondent towards applicant No.1 due to which she left house of respondent and started living with her parents. It was also averred that, applicant is facing health problem and she needs medical treatment but she has no source of income and the applicant is working mechanic in his own motor garage and he is earning Rs.30,000/- per month and further he as 10 acre of agricultural land but not even single penny is paid towards applicants for maintenance therefore application was filed. 4. The respondent filed his reply to the said application and denied the allegations levelled against him. 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. 2,000/- 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. 3 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 the respondent has clearly stated in his cross examination that the respondent is working as Mechnic and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month and further he earns additional income from the agriculture but still very meager amount of maintenance has been granted. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar