1 2025:CGHC:35724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 398 of 2023 Rakesh Roshan Patel S/o Hariram Patel Aged About 30 Years Residence of Village Sothi, Thana Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Ramvati Patel W/o Rakesh Roshan Patel Aged About 26 Years Residence Of Village Sothi, Thana Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Biraghani (Ch) Thana Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Minor Kumari Triyanshi Patel D/o Rakesh Roshan Patel Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Ramvati Patel W/o Rakesh Roshan Patel Residence Of Village Sothi, Thana Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Biraghani (Ch) Thana Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Minor Trishant Patel D/o Rakesh Roshan Patel Aged About 2 Months Through Natural Guardian Smt. Ramvati Patel W/o Rakesh Roshan Patel Residence Of Village Sothi, Thana Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Biraghani (Ch) Thana Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 24.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “Under the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant most humbly prays for the following reliefs :- 1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 30/01/2023 (Annexure A/1), Passed by the Judge Family Court Janjgir, District -Janjgir Champa (C.G.). 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in the favour of the applicant as it may deem to fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the cases.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant, alleging that after their marriage on 08.05.2014 at Birgahni, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), the applicant neglected them, quarreled with non-applicant No. 1, and failed to provide proper care, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents along with their two 3 children (non-applicants No. 2 and 3). The applicant filed a reply denying the allegations, contending that non-applicant No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and, therefore, was not entitled to maintenance. After considering the evidence, the Family Court, by order dated 30.01.2023 in Special Criminal Case No. 190/2022, directed the applicant to pay ₹3,000 per month to non-applicant No. 1 and ₹500 each per month to non- applicants No. 2 and 3. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present revision seeking to set aside the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside, as it suffers from both factual and legal infirmities. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the pleadings, facts, and evidence available on record while passing the order and its findings are perverse and contrary to the material produced during the proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant’s financial condition is extremely weak, and he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance awarded. Hence, the impugned order is erroneous, illegal, and liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly held that the non-applicant-wife and children were entitled to maintenance, as it was the applicant’s legal and moral duty to maintain them. The Court correctly found that the wife was compelled to live separately due to neglect and quarrels by the applicant and that the minor children, being dependent, were also entitled to support. The quantum of maintenance fixed at ₹3,000 per month for the wife and ₹500 per month for each child was reasonable and commensurate with the circumstances of both parties. 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