1 2025:CGHC:40557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 440 of 2024 1 - Smt. Priyanka Tandan W/o Shri Sushil Tandan Aged About 21 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Chandipara, Pangarh, Police Station - Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Vedant S/o Shri Sushil Tandan Aged About 1 Years (Minor), Through His Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Priyanka Tandan, R/o Village - Chandipara, Pangarh, Police Station - Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Sushil Tandan S/o Shri Pardeshi Tandan Aged About 28 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Chandipara, Pangarh, Police Station - Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neha Khandekar, Advocate. 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 12.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 11:11:38 +0530 2 Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.96/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 only, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, their marriage having been solemnized on 16.04.2018 at Village Chandipara, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, applicant No.1 went to the respondent’s house to reside with him, and from their wedlock applicant No.2 was born. After a few months of peaceful matrimonial life, the respondent and his family members started subjecting applicant No.1 to cruelty for demand of dowry. In May 2021, the respondent drove her out of the matrimonial home, directing her to bring money from her parents. Since then, applicant No.1 has been residing at her parental home along with her minor child (applicant No.2). Several attempts were made to resume cohabitation with the respondent along with the child, but the respondent refused. Consequently, in August 2021, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance. 3. Upon hearing the matter, notice was issued to the respondent, who entered appearance, filed his reply, and denied the allegations of the applicants. Thereafter, evidence was adduced from both 3 sides, and arguments were heard. The learned Family Court rejected the claim of applicant No.1, while partly allowing the claim of applicant No.2 by directing the respondent to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month towards his maintenance. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court, is bad in law, contrary to the facts, and passed without proper judicial application of mind. The court below failed to appreciate that applicant No.1, being the legally wedded wife, was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, and was forced out of the matrimonial home in May 2021, giving her sufficient reason to reside separately. The rejection of her maintenance claim is without proper reasoning, and the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded to applicant No.2 is inadequate considering the respondent’s responsibility under Section 125 Cr.P.C. towards his wife and minor child. The order is thus liable to be quashed, set aside, or suitably modified by granting maintenance to applicant No.1 and enhancing the maintenance amount for applicant No.2. 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. 4 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 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No.2 only, towards maintenance observing the evidence, from which it is clear that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was a love marriage, with no proven demand for dowry. The allegations regarding dowry demand lack specific details such as date, time, and amount, and no social or police complaint was filed immediately after the alleged incidents. The cited Supreme Court precedent is not applicable to the present case. Therefore, it is not established that the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent. Furthermore, it is established that applicant No.2, being a one-and- a-half-year-old child, has no independent source of income and is incapable of maintaining himself, while the respondent, engaged in wage labour, is comparatively capable of doing so. Therefore, the Family court concluded that applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 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