1 2025:CGHC:40558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 411 of 2024 Rajesh Tandon S/o Dhannu Lal Tandon, Aged About 32 Years R/o Rampur Police Station Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgrh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Saraswati Tandon W/o Rajesh Tandon, Aged About 29 Years R/o - Village Rampur Police Station Station And Tahsil Palari District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Raseda Police Station Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Richa Tandon D/o Rajesh Tandon Aged About 1 Years 01 Years Representing Through- Her Natural Guardian Mother- Saraswati Tandon W/o Rajesh Tandon R/o - Village Rampur Police Station Station And Tahsil Palari District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Raseda Police Station Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Mahima Tandon holding the brief of Mr. Jhanendra Kumar Mahilang, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by learned Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.316/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), seeking a maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from the applicant. As per the pleadings of the respondents/applicants, the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the applicant on 21.04.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals at village Raseda, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). From their cohabitation, one girl child, namely Richa Tandon, was born. Both parties were initially residing in village Raseda, and the applicant was working in a company. After some time, the applicant left the company job, and thereafter they shifted to Raipur for their livelihood. The respondents further pleaded in their application 3 that they resided peacefully in Raipur for about four months. When respondent No.1 requested her sister-in-law to assist in domestic work, her mother-in-law abused her, saying that she should not ask her daughter to work. It is alleged that her mother- in-law and sister-in-law also assaulted her. When respondent No.1 informed the applicant about such behaviour, the applicant did not take any action against them and instead abused respondent No.1 under the influence of alcohol. 3. It is further alleged that when respondent No.1 became pregnant, during her first delivery, the child died. Due to this, her mother-in- law continued to abuse her. Thereafter, respondent No.1 again conceived and gave birth to a girl child. Subsequent to this, the applicant allegedly began to consume alcohol daily and abuse her. As a result, respondent No.1 left her matrimonial home and began living separately. The respondents have further pleaded that the appicant is working in the Dhan Mandi as a Hamal (labourer) and is earning approximately RS.15,000/- per month. Hence, they prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the appicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his written statement, contending that respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause. He further stated that he made several attempts to reconcile and bring her back, but respondent No.1, under pressure from her family, refused to return. It was also pleaded that the appicant is working as a labourer with no fixed source of income, and therefore, the respondents’ 4 application deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both parties and considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 29.02.2024, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, making a total of Rs.4,500/- per month. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 without any material evidence on record. The Court erred in computing the maintenance amount, particularly when respondent No.1 is residing separately without sufficient cause. The applicant has always been willing to live with the respondents and has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights (Annexure P/2). The learned Family Court failed to consider that the appicant is a labourer earning a meagre income, and therefore the quantum of maintenance is unjustified. The appicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds during the course of hearing. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, 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 the applicant to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the evidence, which clearly establishes that due to disputes and physical assault by the applicant, respondent No.1, despite having a minor daughter, decided to live separately. She has sufficient and valid reasons for residing apart, and has successfully proved the same. Furthermore, the evidence proves that respondent No.1 has no independent means of income and is dependent on her parents for herself and her daughter’s maintenance. The applicant is earning through labor work at the mandi and is financially capable of providing maintenance, yet he has willfully neglected and refused to do so during their separation. Hence, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. Considering the submissions 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 6 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. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek