1 2025:CGHC:28626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 446 of 2019 Bhim Yadav S/o Chita Ram Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Temar, Police Station And Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shraddha Yadav W/o Shri Bhim Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Temar, Police Station And Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village- Achritpali, Police Station And Tahsil- Malkharouda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Jiya Yadav D/o Shri Bhim Yadav Aged About 08 Month, Minor, Through Her Natural Mother Smt. Shraddha Yadav W/o Shri Bhim Yadav, R/o Village- Temar, Police Station And Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village- Achritpali, Police Station And Tahsil- Malkharouda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27 /06/2025 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by learned Judge of Family Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.28/2014, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent lived with the applicant No.1 for three months after their marriage, during which the applicant and his family members would taunt her and physically abuse her, demanding a motorcycle and fridge as dowry. Despite the abuse, the respondent No.1 continued to live with the applicant, but his behavior didn't change. When she became pregnant, the applicant beat her up at his brother's behest and threw her out of the house. She then went to her parental home. The respondents further stated that the respondent No.1 gave birth to a daughter on April 5, 2013, and informed the applicant and his family, but they didn't visit her. A social meeting was held in the village, and the applicant took the respondent No.1 back home after a compromise. However, the applicant and his family members continued to demand dowry and physically abuse her. The 3 respondents alleged that due to the severe physical abuse, the respondent No.1 became weak, and her parents took her back home. When her father asked the applicant’s family to take her back after a few days, they refused to return the respondent No.2 (their daughter). The respondents reported the matter to the police station, and a case was filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The respondents claimed that the applicant earns Rs/300 per day as a mason and has 2.5-3 acres of agricultural land, making him capable of maintaining them. However, he refuses to do so. The respondents requested a monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000 from the applicant. The applicant in his reply, denied the allegations, stating that the respondent No.1 lived with him for only 1.5-2 months and that she and her parents wanted her to live in her parental home. He claimed that he never demanded dowry or harassed her and that he works as a laborer with masons, not as a mason himself, and doesn't own any agricultural land. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learend Family Court erred in granting maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC because the respondent/wife has an independent source of income and can maintain herself which was duly proved by the applicant. He further submits that a final decree has been passed 4 in his favor in the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, directing the respondent/wife to live with him, which she has refused to do, thereby dis-entitling her to maintenance. Additionally, the applicant asserts that the respondent/wife failed to prove demands for dowry and cruel treatment by the applicant and his relatives. He claims that the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily without reason after a short span of cohabitation. He also submits that the applicant also alleges that the Family Court erred in holding that the respondent/wife is living separately with sufficient reasons, contending that ample evidence on record was not properly considered. Therefore, the order impugned is bad in law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent 5 No.2 towards maintenance observing that the economic and social status of both parties, as well as the current financial situation, considering the necessary needs of the wife and children, further observed that the applicant is a laborer, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil