1 2025:CGHC:34608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 500 of 2023 Akashdeep Mishra S/o Shri Dineshchandra Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o Chhoti Koni, Police Station-Koni, Tahsil and, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Laxmi Mishra W/o Akashdeep Mishra Aged About 30 Years R/o In Front Of Medical Complex, Beside Bharat Bag, Telipara, Police Station- City Kotwali Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Inshanvi Mishra D/o Akashdeep Mishara Aged About 3 Years Minor, Represented Though Mother Smt. Laxmi Mishra, R/o In Front Of Medical Complex, Beside Bharat Bag, Telipara, Police Station-City Kotwali Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 1.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.1072/2019, whereby the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:01:19 +0530 2 the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter and rejected the application with respect to respondent No.1/wife. Hence, this revision. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that the marriage of respondent No. 1 and applicant was performed on 08.02.2015 according to social rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 has been born. After sometime of marriage, the applicant used to subject her to cruelty by beating with the respondent No. 1, due to which, she is living separately in her parental house. The applicant is running a private agency in the name of Viken Consultancy and thereby earning Rs. 22,000/-per month, in spite of that, he is not paying single towards their penny to the respondents maintenance, whereas the respondent No. 1 is a housewife and she has no source of income. After serving notice, the applicant filed reply to the application, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that the applicant has never given any cruel or ill-treatment to respondent No. 1. It was further specifically contended that the applicant was living in the joint family members, due to which, respondent No. 1 pressurized the applicant to live separately, but as the applicant was not ready for living separately, therefore the respondent No. 1 has left her matrimonial house and she is living in her parental house, without there being any reasonable cause. The non-applicant no. 1 is well educated lady having B.Sc. degree in Micro Biology and she is able to maintain herself. It was further specifically contended that the applicant has no permanent source of income and he is liable to maintain his parents. It was also contended that the Mishra Girls Hostel is the joint family property and since the non- 3 applicant is living separately without reasonable cause, therefore the applicant for grant of maintenance is liable to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 18.04.2023, the learned Family Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 towards her maintenance from 04.11.2019 from the date of application i.e. from 04.11.2019. Hence, this revision 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. The learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- from the date of application i.e. from 04.11.2019. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never ousted respondent No. 1, in fact, the respondent herself left her matrimonial house and living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore the respondents are not entitled to get maintenance. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that applicant is always ready and willing to keep the respondents and to maintain them, but since respondent No. 1 is not willing to live with the applicant and she did not return in the house of applicant in spite of several efforts made by the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no permanent source of income. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the Mishra Girls Hostel is the joint family property of the applicant and other family members and the applicant is not getting any income from the said hostel. The learned Family Court has wrongly presumed that the applicant is able to earn Rs. 250/-per day., it is well settled law that the benefits under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Even the impugned maintenance amount is excessive and on higher side looking to the low income of the applicant, which deserves to be set-aside/quashed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent No.1 is refusing to live with her husband without any sufficient reason. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband under section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, respondent No.2 is a minor and the responsibility of maintaining the maintenance of the minor daughter is on her father. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti