1 2025:CGHC:6902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 346 of 2024 1 - Bhavesh Chandra Sarkar S/o Shri S.C. Sarkar Aged About 42 Years R/o Mig-I/347, Housing Board Colony, Devrikhurd, Police Station Torwa, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Sumita Sarkar W/o Shri Bhavesh Chandra Sarkar Aged About 39 Years D/o Shri K.C. Majumdar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kumharpara (Maa Santoshi Bhawan), Fafadih Raipur, Police Station Ganj, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Address- 160, West Masoda, Ward No.7, Near Jagarani Club, P.O. New Borrackpore, Police Station Ghola, District North 24 Parganas (West Bengal) Pin-700131, Mobile No. 7044318519,7059104403 2 - Ayushi Sarkar D/o Shri Bhavesh Chandra Sarkar Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sumita Sarkar, R/o Kumharpara (Maa Santoshi Bhawan), Fafadih Raipur, Police Station Ganj, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Present Address- 160, West Masoda, Ward No.7, Near Jagarani Club, P.O. New Borrackpore, Police Station Ghola, District North 24 Parganas (West Bengal) Pin-700131, Mobile No. 7044318519,7059104403 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Shri Anukul Biswas and Shri Rakesh kumar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.12 10:22:02 +0530 2 Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. Applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 21/02/2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 243/2018, whereby the application under Section 127(2)(3) of the CrPC filed by the applicant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20/06/2007. The respondent No. 1 has left her matrimonial house on 01/09/2007 without any reason, thereafter applicant filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for conjugal rights, which was passed in favour of the applicant. On 26/09/2016 applicant filed an application under Section 13(1)(B) of Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur and granted decree of divorce to the applicant. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed application under Section 125 of CrPC which was allowed by the learned Family Court, Raipur and thereafter applicant filed an application under Order 127 (2)(3) of CrPC, which was rejected by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, hence this revision. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has passed the order is illegal and improper and against the natural justice. He further submits that applicant has become mentally ill due to the 3 disintegration of his family life and lot of a Court cases. He further submits that the applicant had been working as Assistant Professor in JK Institute of Engineering, Bilaspur since 15/07/2011 but due to his old aged parents and their ill health he resigned his services and at present he is an unemployed. He also submits that respondent No. 1 is working as Software Engineering and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant. Learned counsel placed the reliance in an identical matter of this Court in FAM No. 181/2019 ‘Rahul Tiwari vs. Smt. Vandana Tiwari’ vide judgment dated 26/03/2021, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the wife is not entitled to get the maintenance, if a Hindu wife lives separately without any reason. Hence, the order passed by learned Family Court is quashed and allow the revision. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents attached in this revision. 6. Learned Family Court has observed that Smt. Sumita Sarkar has stated that the Bhavesh Chandra Sarkar works in Cadila Medical Company and earns Rs. 20,000 per month. She does not work and has no source of income. Her brother bears her and her daughter's expenses. At present, her daughter is studying in class IV at Ramakrishna Mission, West Bengal. The non-applicant has not produced any documentary evidence of any kind to prove the said income of the applicant. Under these circumstances, it is not proved that the monthly income of the applicant is Rs. 20,000/-. Although, in this case, it has been proved that non- applicant No.1 is the married wife of the applicant and non-applicant No. 4 2 is the minor daughter of the applicant. The non-applicants are presently living separately from the applicant. The applicant has not given any documents for his wife and daughter. No arrangement for maintenance is being made whereas the applicant has a moral responsibility as well as a legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. Applicant has bear the amount for maintenance of his wife and minor daughter and the Court has ordered Rs.1500/- for respondent No.1 and Rs.1000/- for respondent No.2 to get monthly maintenance. 7. This Court has observed that the non-applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife and non-applicant No. 2 is the minor daughter of the applicant and applicant is a well settled person and he can well maintain his wife and child. Non-applicant No.2 is daughter of the applicant and is a school going child and had to expend on tuition fee and bus charges etc.; she is living with her mother. Looking to the current inflation and the expenditure on studies, learned Family Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 127(2)(3) of CrPC of the applicant. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde