1 2025:CGHC:34977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 522 of 2020 Khelawan Kurrey S/o Late Rameshwar Kurrey Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Bhilai, Tashil Arang, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Chhaya Kurrey W/o Khelawan Kurrey Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Satnam Chowk, Village Serikhedi, Post Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Tanuja @ Toran Kurrey D/o Shri Khelawan Kurrey Aged About 17 Years Resident Of Satnam Chowk, Village Serikhedi, Post Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.02/2020, which is an application for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing the instant revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2020 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.79/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No. 1 and the applicant solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals, and respondent No. 2 was born from their wedlock. However, after some time, the applicant and his family members allegedly harassed and tortured respondent No. 1, failed to provide proper treatment, and subjected her to physical abuse and foul language. As a result, the respondents are residing at her parental home, and she has no source of income. The applicant, on the other hand, owns 5 acres of agricultural land and earns approximately Rs.3-4 lakhs per annum. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking a maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant filed a 3 reply, denying all allegations and claiming that respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home without any reason. He argued that the respondents are residing separately, and therefore, the application under Section 125 of the CrPC is liable to be quashed. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.2,000 per month for respondent No. 2. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has overlooked the crucial fact that respondent No. 1 abandoned her matrimonial home without any valid reason and the respondents are living separately, but failed to consider this fact while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has overlooked the fact that the respondent owns 2 acres of land and earns an annual income of Rs.2,00,000/- thereby having a sufficient source of income to maintain herself. Furthermore, the respondent's behavior was good in the initial stages of the marriage, but over time, her attitude changed, and she subjected the appellant to cruelty and mental torture, ultimately forcing him to live separately. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant is a laborer and does not own any agricultural land in his name, and therefore, the impugned order of maintenance is liable to be set-aside. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that respondent No. 1, Chhaya @ Kurrre, has failed to prove that she is living separately from the applicant for sufficient reasons, so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, respondent No.2 is daughter of applicant, applicant is willing to keep the respondent with him. However, from the evidence presented by both parties, it has come to light that the applicant has taken another woman and has two children with her, for whom he is also responsible for maintenance. Despite this, the applicant has not taken any steps to keep his daughter respondent No.2, with him since her childhood, despite her being mentally weak and intellectually challenged. In such circumstances, it does not seem plausible that the applicant would be able to take proper care of her maintenance and well-being. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that respondent No.2 is entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions 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 5 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