1 CGHC010150612025 2026:CGHC:37119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 540 of 2025 1 - Lavango Rajwade W/o Hemant Kumar Rajwade Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Girvarganj, Police Station And Tahsil, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), Present R/o Village Bilaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Krishna Kumar S/o Hemant Kumar Rajwade Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother- Lavango Rajwade, W/o Hemant Kumar Rajwade, R/o Village Girvarganj, Police Station And Tahsil, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), Present R/o Village Bilaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Hemant Kumar Rajwade S/o Vikram Kumar Rajwade Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Girvarganj, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 45/2023, 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. 1,500/- per month to the applicant No. 2 as maintenance, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 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 applicant No.1 and respondent had solemnized in the year 2018 as per Hindu Rights & Rituals and after marriage the applicant no.1 went to her matrimonial house and thereafter applicant No. 02 was born to the parties on 30.08.2021. It was averred that, after six months of the marriage, the respondent and his father and mother started harassing the applicant No. 01 for demand of motorcycle in dowry and threatened to solemnize second marriage of the respondent. Further upon non fulfillment of dowry demands, the respondent and his family started abusing the applicant and stopped giving her food. Further it was alleged that on 19.03.2021, when the applicant was 3 months pregnant, the respondent and his parents assaulted her and kicked her out of the house in the night and thereafter she called her brother and went back to the maternal home. Thereafter the applicant filed an application before the Family welfare center wherein the respondent made allegations on her character and stated the applicant No. 02 is not his son and since then she is living at her maternal home. It was also averred that the respondent is posted as operator in Nayanpur Industrial area plant and earns salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month and further has 5-6 acres of agricultural land through which he earns Rs. 2 Lakh per year but not even single penny is paid by him towards maintenance of applicants therefore maintenance to tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month was claimed. 3 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. 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. 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 and his family was harassing the applicant by demanding dowry and the applicant abused and assaulted her alleging her of having extra marital affair and therefore the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent, and the respondent is earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month, but despite of that a meager amount of maintenance Rs. 1,500/- ha been granted which is very low. 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 17.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 45/2023, 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. 1,500/- 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 4 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 rejected. 10. 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