1 2025:CGHC:38890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 356 of 2023 Prakash Joshi S/o Laxmi Das Joshi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Tilaibhath, Police Station Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Ku. Ragni Joshi D/o Prakash Joshi Aged About 8 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Shanti Joshi Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Tilaibhath, Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., Presentl Address Village Manikpur, Police Station - Bodla, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) may kindly be set- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 aside in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kawardha, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the applicant, alleging that she is the daughter born from the wedlock of the applicant Prakash Joshi and Smt. Shanti Joshi; that her mother was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members and was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 16.08.2021; and that the applicant, despite having sufficient means from his work as a contractor and income from agricultural land, has neglected to maintain her, thereby compelling her to live with her mother, who works as an Anganbadi worker. The applicant filed his reply on 28.05.2022, denying all allegations, contending that the mother of the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily, that he earns only about Rs.30,000/- per annum working as a labourer in a sugar factory for four months in a year, and that he is suffering from kidney ailments. It was further stated that the mother of the respondent herself earns Rs.10,000/- per month and possesses land in her name, and therefore she is capable of maintaining the child. The matter was referred to mediation, which failed, and thereafter the learned Family Court, upon framing issues and evaluating the evidence on record, partly allowed the application vide order dated 25.02.2023 and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, 3 Family Court, Kawardha, is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the material on record, and hence liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the mother of the respondent has been residing separately without any justified reason since 16.08.2021 and that the FIR bearing Crime No. 24/2022 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, and 34 IPC was lodged belatedly on 25.01.2022 as an afterthought and counter-blast to the complaints earlier made by the applicant’s family regarding quarrels and harassment in the name of Tonhi. The court below also erred in properly assessing the means of the applicant, who is a daily-wage labourer with limited income, while the mother of the respondent is herself earning and capable of maintaining the child. The applicant has always been willing to keep his wife and daughter with him, and in these circumstances, the order granting maintenance suffers from material irregularities and is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Kawardha, rightly held that the respondent, being the legitimate daughter of the applicant, is entitled to be maintained by him in accordance with law. The Court correctly noted that the applicant, despite being physically able and having 4 sufficient means through his contractual work and income from agricultural land, failed to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his minor daughter. The plea of the applicant regarding alleged voluntary desertion by the mother and his claimed limited income was duly considered and rightly rejected, as the liability to maintain a child is absolute and independent of disputes between the spouses. In view of the evidence on record and the settled principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court justly exercised its discretion in partly allowing the application and awarding a modest sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application, which neither suffers from legal infirmity nor calls for interference. 8. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan