1 2025:CGHC:31316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 399 of 2020 1. Smt. Ramkumari W/o Shri Kheer Sagar Aged About 22 Years C/o Gayaram Shrivas, R/o Village- Sarva, Post- Sarva, Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol, District- Balodabajar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Ku. Divya D/o Shri Kheer Sagar Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Ramkumari W/o Shri Kheer Sagar, By Caste- Nai, R/o Village - Nithoura, Thana- Saliha, District Balodabajar Chhattisgarh. At Present C/o Gayaram Shrivas, R/o Village- Sarva, Post- Sarva, Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol, District- Balodabajar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Kheer Sagar S/o Shri Radheshyam Aged About 26 Years By Caste- Nai, Occupation Hair Saloon Shop R/o Village - Nithoura, Thana- Saliha, District - Balodabajar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.09 10:34:59 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be awarded by allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the suitable amount of maintenance may kindly be allowed in favour of the applicant No. 02, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that applicant No.1 and the respondent are wife and husband. Their marriage took place on 29.03.2015 at Village Sarva as per the customs prevailing in the society and in accordance with Hindu law. After marriage, they started residing at Nithoura. Out of the said wedlock, a female child, namely Ku. Divya, was born. Just after the birth of the female child, the respondent/husband started harassing applicant No.1 and subjected her to cruelty. After consuming liquor, he used to beat her and eventually threw her out of the house. Therefore, the applicants have been residing at her parental home (mayka) since 05.09.2017. The respondent is not taking care of the applicants, although he is legally bound to maintain them as they are his wife and daughter. Applicant No.1 is not engaged in any work and, due to the responsibility of taking care of her minor daughter, she is unable to work as a labourer and is completely dependent upon her father for her livelihood. Therefore, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 5,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs. 4,000/- for applicant No.2. 4. The respondent is working as a barber and owns a hair-cutting shop from which he earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. He also owns 5 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 5 lakhs per annum, and thus has sufficient means to maintain the applicants but has not provided any amount. Therefore, the application was filed. 3 5. Upon issuance of notice by the Family Court, the respondent appeared and filed a written statement, stating that applicant No.1 herself is not willing to live with the respondent and due to disputes, she voluntarily left the house of the respondent and started residing at her parental home. It was further stated that earlier, a family meeting took place wherein a community talaq was pronounced, and it was decided by the panchas to provide Rs. 900/- per month to applicant No.2. The non-applicant prayed for the dismissal of the application and denied the alleged income from the saloon and agriculture. 6. The learned Family Court recorded the evidence of the parties and held that applicant No.1 failed to produce evidence regarding cruelty and also failed to produce evidence showing sufficient reasons for residing separately. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application of applicant No.1 and partly allowed the application of applicant No.2 by passing an order for maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month, without considering the fact that, given the present prices of essential commodities, it is not possible for a girl child to survive on Rs. 1,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance, as the marriage between the parties has been admitted, and the respondent is legally bound to maintain his wife as well as his daughter. Learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application for maintenance without any legal justification, even though the applicant produced evidence to establish that due to the harassment by the respondent, she was thrown out of the house and thereafter started residing with her parents. He submits that the factum of marriage was proved by the witnesses, and the applicant clearly stated the 4 instances of cruelty, which were supported by the evidence of the applicant’s witnesses. However, the Family Court committed an error of law by misreading the evidence. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant was not residing with the respondent due to harassment and cruelty by the husband, and there existed sufficient reasons for her to reside separately. He also submits that learned Family Court committed gross illegality in disbelieving the evidence of the applicant and her witnesses, even though, upon perusal of the evidence, it is clearly established that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain his wife, while the wife has no source of income and is living like a beggar in society. The applicant is totally dependent upon her parents, who are unable to provide proper facilities for her and her minor female child. The respondent owns a hair salon and easily earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. He also owns 5 acres of agricultural land from which he earns additional income. Despite having sufficient means, he has not provided any amount to applicant No.1 for her maintenance. The applicant is facing numerous difficulties in surviving with her minor female child due to the meagre financial support, which is insufficient for proper maintenance. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1000/- to the applicant No. 02, whereas the application for maintenance was rejected on behalf of the applicant No. 01, observing 5 the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek