1 2025:CGHC:32938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 319 of 2022 Virendra Tiwari S/o Byasnarayan Tiwari Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Lalpur, Near Leprosy Hospital, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Devshri Tiwari W/o Virendra Tiwari Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Ward No. 40, Lal Bagicha, Subhash Nagar Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akshat Tiwari S/o Virendra Tiwari, Through Next Friend - Mother Smt. Devshri Tiwari, W/o Virendra Tiwari. Resident Of Ward No. 40, Lal Bagicha, Subhash Nagar Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineet K. Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 petition setting aside the judgment dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Family Judge, Dhamtari, in M.J.C. No. 146/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant is the husband of non- applicant no.1 and father of non-applicant no.2. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.04.2012 according to Hindu rites, and non- applicant no.2 was born on 21.10.2013. Non-applicant no.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhamtari, seeking maintenance of ₹20,000 per month (₹10,000 each for herself and her son), alleging that the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty, including physical assault and abuse under the influence of alcohol, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home in September 2017. The applicant denied the allegations, stating that he had fulfilled her demands, including living separately from his parents, and that she had voluntarily left the house despite attempts at reconciliation. He claimed that she refused to return even after a compromise was reached through Mahila Thana, and instead continued with her adamant behavior. The Family Court had earlier passed an ex-parte order on 14.11.2018, which was set aside on 01.10.2019 upon the applicant’s application. After considering the evidence from both sides, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order dated 30.11.2021, partly allowing the application by rejecting the maintenance claim of non-applicant no.1 on the ground that she lacked sufficient reason to reside separately, but granting ₹3,000 3 per month to non-applicant no.2. Aggrieved by the quantum and findings, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. The Court below failed to properly evaluate the documentary and oral evidence, and despite recording a specific finding that non- applicant no.1 had no justified reason to leave the matrimonial home, it erroneously awarded maintenance to non-applicant no.2. In the given circumstances, it is evident that non-applicant no.1 is misusing the presence of the child merely as a tool to harass and exert pressure on the applicant. Furthermore, the learned Court failed to consider that the applicant, being employed in the private sector, became jobless due to the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently facing severe financial hardship. Awarding any amount of maintenance under such constrained circumstances imposes an unreasonable burden on the applicant and is therefore unjustified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasoned, and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The Court rightly concluded that non-applicant no.1 failed to establish any sufficient or lawful reason for deserting the matrimonial home and therefore, was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4 The allegations of cruelty and harassment were not supported by credible evidence, and the applicant had demonstrated that he had made efforts to reconcile, including living separately from his parents and participating in counseling through Mahila Thana. The Family Court rightly exercised its discretion by denying maintenance to non-applicant no.1, while at the same time ensuring the welfare of the minor child, non-applicant no.2, by awarding ₹3,000 per month as maintenance. The decision reflects a balanced approach, protecting the interests of the child while preventing misuse of the provision by the estranged spouse. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan