1 CGHC010171622025 2026:CGHC:36249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 568 of 2025 1 - Smt. M. Swati @ Himkirti W/o R. Nilesh Relegadla Aged About 30 Years R/o Through M.L. Verma Plot No. 267/659 Shikshit Nagar Charoda Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Ku. R. Drisha D/o R. Nilesh Relegadla Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. M Swati @ Himkirti, R/o Through M.L. Verma Plot No. 267/659 Shikshit Nagar Charoda Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants versus R. Nilesh Relegadla S/o R. Ramna Rao Aged About 35 Years R/o B-203, Shri Sai Supreme, Bannereghatta Road Bramhakumari Ashram Road Gottigere Bangalore South, Bangalore, Office Address- Navs Arcade, 11, 1st Main Cross, 1st Block Koramangala, Koramangala Bengaluru, Karnataka 560034, 2nd Address- House No. B/3, 642, Kaveri Block, Ntional Games Village, Bangalore South, Vivek Nagar Bangalore 560047 Karnataka. ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anmol Gupta, learned counsel for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 481/2021, 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. 15,000/- 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 applicant No.1 filed an application for maintenance under the provision of section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court, Durg on 08.03.2021. According to the application the marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with the respondent husband according to Hindu Rites and custom at Railway Institute Charoda District Durg (C.G) on 16.02.2017. After the marriage the respondent husband took the applicant No.1 to his work place at work at Bengaluru (Karnataka). It is further allegations in the application that after the marriage,d the mother-in-law used to taunt applicant No.1 for bringing less dowry and she also tried to become hinderance between the husband and wife. In March 2017 respondent took the applicant No.1 to Kullu Manali (H.P) where a call came from one girl in the mobile of respondent husband. The respondent husband admitted that this call was from her girlfriend and also stated that on the pressure of his parents he had to marry with the applicant No.1 otherwise he would have married with his girlfriend and if she left the house his girlfriend would come to his house. The respondent also tried to suffocate the applicant No.1 with the aid of pillow. 3 4. It is also alleged in the application that in June 2017 she sensed having pregnancy but her mother-in- law was not in favor that she would continue the pregnancy and she obtained some medicine and caused her abortion. It is also stated in the application in January 2018 the health condition her father was deteriorating so the respondent came to Bhilai with the applicant No.1 after taking 10 days leave and after staying only one day, he returned back to Bengaluru on 16.01.2018. Meanwhile the health condition of her father became serious and he was referred to Mumbai and the health condition of her brother was also not good therefore the applicant No.1 was trying to contact the respondent but it was of no avail and ultimately the applicant No.1 had to travel alone from Mumbai to Bengaluru on 09.02.2018. The applicant No.1 came to know that the accommodation in which the respondent was residing was a rented house where as initially the respondent had told the applicant No.1 that he was the owner of the house. 5. The father of applicant No.1 expired on 03.10.2018 and after receiving the information of said demise the applicant No.1 came Bhilai, at that time she was carrying a pregnancy of 04 months, she wanted to stay at least 15- 20 days with her mother, but the respondent returned to Bengaluru and asked her to came after delivery. On completion of 08 months of pregnancy she called the respondent but he did not come. On 01.03.2019 the applicant No.1 gave birth to a girl child (Applicant no. 2) by cesarian operation, the respondent and his mother came to Charoda but expressed sorrow on birth of girl child. They asked the applicant No.1 to came to Bengaluru with 05 lacs. In Bengaluru the respondent was completely under the influence of her mother and even in meals they discriminated her. Even in her declaration of status the 4 respondent had declared himself as unmarried in his department. In December 2019 the applicant No.1 shifted the respondent in another rented house without her proper knowledge and on 29.01.2020 he left her in a lurch. The applicant No.1 tried to contact the respondent but he had blocked her number. The applicant No.1 went to Jameshdpur (Tata) in search of respondent but his sister did not allow her to enter in her house therefore she sat on dharna before the office of Superintendent of Police. She came to know about the divorce petition filed by the respondent in Bengaluru Court. She returned to her parental house with her minor child and staying at Charoda with the support of her widowed mother and brother. The respondent is earning 1,50,000/- per month. The applicant No.1 had requested that she may be granted 30,000/- p.m for herself and 20,000/- p.m for her minor daughter. 6. 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. 15,000/- 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. 7. 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 learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the even if the husband who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights stands 5 not absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of law even his wife refuses to live with him for some reason. Therefore, the order of the Family Court is liable to be modified. 8. 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 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 481/2021, 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. 15,000/- per month to the applicant No. 2 as maintenance, and not for the applicant No.1, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6 12. 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