1 2025:CGHC:13434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 373 of 2025 Mithun Das S/o Lalit Das Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Geet Mitaan Kala Kendra, Ruvabandha, 191 B Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dipanti Das W/o Mithun Das Aged About 33 Years, 2 - Ku. Mimmi Das D/o Mithun Das Aged About 1 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dipanti Das, Both R/o Village Jugani Kalaar, Tehsil Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For applicant : Shri Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on board 20/03/2025 1. Instant revision has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon in Misc Criminal Case No.59/2021 whereby the learned Family Court has ordered to pay Rs.3250/- to respondent no.1 and Rs.3000/- as maintenance to respondent no.2 totaling to Rs.6250/- as maintenance to the respondents. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.03.25 15:10:47 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant and the Respondent no.1 were married to each other on 20.02.18 as per Bengali Rites and Rituals at village- Jugani Kalaar, Tehsil- Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.). Out of the wedlock the Respondent No.2 Ku. Mimmi was born who is presently residing with the Respondent no.1. Due to differences between husband and wife the applicant and the Respondent no.1 were living separately since 16.03.19 and she had filed an application before the learned J.M.F.C. Kondagaon in which learned J.M.F.C passed an order dated 23.09.2023 in case no 19/2019 directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- to Respondent no.2 from 03.07.2019, and thereafter again Respondent no.1 had moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2025. The respondent no.1 & 2 claimed maintenance of Rs 20,000/- from the applicant before the Family Court, Kondagaon. After notice to the applicant who is respondent before the Family Court filed written statement and it was specifically submitted in the written statement that when the respondent was suffering with swine flu, she was treated at Sector-9 Hospital at Bhilai. At that time respondent no.1 was eight and a half month pregnant and she was referred to Ram Krishna Hospital to save the child. But they took her to Mekahara Hospital and then admitted her to Ramkrishna Hospital, where the child was born through surgical operation and as per doctor advice, the child was kept away from the mother so that the child does not come in contact with swine flu. The child was discharged 3 after 10 days on 06.03.2019, after being discharged when the respondent no.1 came back home, she started insisting to meet her child and going to her maternal home and then on 16.03.2019 she went to her maternal home in Kondagaon and after that she refused to come back. The respondent no.1 is a woman with a nursing degree, and she is living at her maternal home of her own free will. It was also submitted in the written statement that the respondent no.1 had lodged a false case against the applicant under Domestic Violation Act also U/s 498-A of I.P.C. and which is pending before learned J.M.F.C. In order to prove the case the Respondent no 1 examined herself and the Applicant examined himself as DW-1 to rebut the claim. 3. The learned Family Court, Kondagaon vide its impugned order dated 30.1.25 has ordered to pay Rs.3250/- to respondent no.1 and Rs.3000/- as maintenance to respondent no.2 totaling to Rs.6250/- as maintenance to the respondents. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is completely illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the grounds taken in the written statement and evidence for denying maintenance to the respondent no-1 and ought to have considered the application after appreciating the evidence lead by 4 both the parties. He would submit that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent wife for no genuine reason is living separately from the applicant. He would further submit that the non-applicant is harassing the applicant by filing criminal case under Domestic Violation Act also under Section 498-A of I.P.C. He would submit that the applicant is poor person and not on fixed salary and it will not be possible for him to pay per month Rs 6250/- to non applicants. Therefore, he submits that impugned order is illegal, erroneous and deserves to be set aside / modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and from perusal of the record, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned Family Court has granted interim maintenance amount of Rs.6250/- per month (Rs.3250/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.2). 7. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that respondent No.1/wife has no source of income, she is residing in her parental home with her minor daughter/respondent No.2 and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the non-applicants/respondents under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant 5 is husband of the respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, has to pay the said interim maintenance amount. 8. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and it is alleged that due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs.6250/- per month to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE gouri