1 2025:CGHC:9522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 262 of 2025 Shri Narendra Singh Darshan S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Shrivas Aged About 42 Years (Present Age 47 Years), Profession - Training Officer, I.T.I. Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently Posted At I.T.I. Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Aasma City, Sakri, Tah. And Dist. - Bilaspur (C.G) (Non-Applicant) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ritu Shrivas W/o Narendra Singh Darshan Aged About 31 Years R/o 27 Kholi Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Lines, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Applicants) 2 - Divyansh Singh Darshan S/o Shri Narendra Singh Darshan Aged About 6 Years Through - Legal Guardian/mother Smt. Ritu Shrivas R/o 27 Kholi Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Lines, Tah. And Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Srivas, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. Heard finally. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Family Court, Bilaspur district Bilaspur C.G. in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 281 of 2022 (Annexure P/1). 3. The case in nutshell is that respondent no. 1 has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court 2 Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. in which it was stated that petitioner and respondent no. 1 were married to each other on 21.05.2013 as per Hindu Law and customs at Bilaspur. Respondent no. 1 in her application stated that after the birth of respondent no. 2 the petitioner used to ignore his duties towards respondent no. 1 and 2 and used to ill treat her mentally and physically. She made a complaint before the mahila thana. She is residing at her maternal home since September, 2017. 4. On appreciation of the findings placed before the concerned Trial Court, the court allowed the maintenance application of the respondents by directing the present applicant to pay the maintenance of Rs.6000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to respondent no. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the order passed by the learned Judge is bad in law. Respondent no. 12 has not examined her mother, father or brother before the learned trial court in support of her allegation. Learned trial court has overlooked this fact that the present petitioner had visited on various occasions to bring her back to his house and to start a new life with her but she always denied to return. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused all the available documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that due to ill treatment and harassment by husband/petitioner, the respondent wife has made a complaint against the petitioner husband in Mahila Thana. It is also evident from the order so passed in the Trial Court that respondent has sufficient ground to reside separately from her husband. 8. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is noteworthy that in any way, the respondent no. 1 and the 3 petitioner are living separately and the petitioner is a Training Officer and is earning a handsome amount of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. On the other hand respondent no. 1 is completely dependent on petitioner and is also taking care of her child (respondent no. 2). 9. So far as the question of responsibility of the respondents is concerned, it is but obvious that respondent no. 1/wife, respondent no.2 is surely entitled to receive the maintenance, as they are dependent upon the income of petitioner only. 10. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh has not committed any illegality in allowing the maintenance application of respondents. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 11. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revisions being devoid of merits is dismissed and is subsequently disposed of. 12. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza