1 2025:CGHC:28166 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 320 of 2019 Rajesh Choubey S/o Ashok Choubey, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bhilai Nagar, Opposite Company, Rajeev Nagar, Chhawani, Ward No. 17, P. S. Jamul, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rajani Choubey, W/o Rajesh Choubey Aged About 33 Years R/o Laxman Nagar, Chhawani, Near Chhath Talab Bhiali, P.S. Khursipar, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, 2 - Minor Neha Choubey D/o Rajesh Choubey Aged About 7 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Applicant No. 1, Smt. Ranani Choubey, R/o Laxman Nagar, Chhawani, Near Chhath Talab Bhiali, P. S. Khursipar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.834/2013, whereby the application under PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:08:54 +0530 2 Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents (wife & daughter) has been partly allowed and it has been directed that the applicant/husband shall pay Rs.3,000/- to his wife/respondent No.1 herein and Rs.2,000/- to his daughter/ respondent No.2 herein per month as maintenance amount from 08.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, this revision has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent No.1/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, mentioning therein that she was married with the applicant in the year 2009 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their wedlock she has given birth to a girl child (respondent No.2 herein). After marriage, the respondent no. 1 lived in her matrimonial house, where behavior of the applicant was normal up to 4-5 months of the marriage. After 4-5 months, behavior of applicant was changed and applicant started torture to the respondent no.1, the applicant used to speak filthy word and quarreled with the applicant for minor matter. The respondent no. 1 tried to pacify the disputed, but the applicant became more cruel, the applicant started to drink wine and consume ganja, and started beating to the respondent no. 1, many times, the respondent no. 1 was expelled out from matrimonial for whole night, the respondent no. 1 was detent in matrimonial house, and not allowed to talk with family members or her relative. Day by day the cruelty was increased more and more, but no change came out in behavior of the applicant, due to cruelty and beating of applicant, the respondents are constrained to live the her parental house. Then, 3 the respondents lodged an FIR against the applicant wherein the offence under section 498-A of the I.P.C. has been registered against the applicant. The respondents have no source of livelihood, on the contrary, applicant is employee of private company from which he raises Rs. 15,000/- per month salary and is simultaneously running a business of transporting, but the applicant is neglecting to maintain respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to see that respondents without any sufficient reason left the house of the applicant and are living separately. It is also stated that decree of divorce has been passed by the competent court between the parties despite which, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court, which is liable to be quashed. Further, the respondents have not proved source of income of the applicant and not filed any documents with relation to the income of the documents, despite of it, impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court, which is based upon presumption surmises, which is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and the other documents available on record. 5. From perusal of the evidence available on record and further on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent No.1 4 is the wife of the applicant/husband and she is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons and she is not capable of maintaining herself. Further, the applicant/husband has not taken any defence of being unwell, and and hence, he is physically capable of supporting the applicants. Considering the above facts and further, considering the social and economic status of both the parties, it was ordered that the applicant/husband would pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2/daughter, thus a total of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from the order dated 08.01.2019, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti