1 2025:CGHC:34635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 503 of 2020 Vijay Kumar Tandi S/o Mohan Tandi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pandmudi, Post Office Chheliyamal, Thana Bhawani, Patna Sadar, Tahsil Bhawani Patna, District Kalahandi (Odisa), District : Kalahandi, Orissa ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kalpna Deep W/o Vijay Kumar Tandi, D/o Raghunaath Deep, Aged About 30 Years R/o C - 37, Sector 1, Ekta Nagar Gudiyari, Thana Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Gudiyari Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.448/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent 2 and directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that due to the non-applicant's absence, an ex-parte proceeding was conducted against him on July 16, 2019. The marriage between Smt. Kalpana Deep and Vijay Kumar Tandi took place on February 28, 2016. About a month after the marriage, the applicant and his parents started harassing respondent for dowry and money, subjecting her to physical and mental torture, and threatening her. They would periodically demand dowry, torture her, and send her back to her parental home. The applicant would falsely assure her that he would soon find work. He would secretly give his earnings to his mother putting the respondent’s life in distress. 3. Since May 12, 2016, the applicant has not come to take the respondent back. The applicant works as a Coordination Officer in the District Collector's office and owns 65 acres of land. He is also engaged in the business of agricultural inputs and pesticides. The applicant's total monthly income is Rs.60,000/-. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.40,000/-. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the respondent has directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and not based on evidence, and is therefore liable to be set aside. He further submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from factual and legal infirmities. Moreover, the applicant's financial condition is not good; therefore, he is unable to pay any amount to the respondent. He also submits that due to the mistake of the counsel, the applicant failed to appear before the Family Court, and the Family Court passed an ex-parte order in favor of the respondent without providing the applicant with an opportunity to be heard. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 respondent and directed the pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. Furthermore, the respondent’s statement has been supported by her mother, Bhanumati Deep. Both witnesses' testimonies clearly indicate that the applicant subjected the respondent to dowry harassment and left her at her parental home on May 12, 2016, without making any effort to take her back. Consequently, the applicant is residing separately from her husband due to valid reasons. Moreover, the respondent has 4 further stated that her husband works as a District Coordinator in the Ministry in Odisha, earning a salary of Rs.35,000/- and also earns Rs.25,000/- per month from business. This statement has been corroborated by Bhanumati Deep. However, apart from the applicant's statement, there is no documentary evidence to prove the income sources and the amount earned. A salary certificate could have been presented. Therefore, it is only established that the applicant has a source of income and earns more than Rs.30,000 per month. After considering the husband's obligations towards his wife, the current inflation rate, the position held by the applicant, and all the circumstances, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 7. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil