1 2025:CGHC:43373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 628 of 2019 1 - Devprakash S/o Suresh Aged About 33 Years Caste - Teli, Occupation - Agriculture, R/o Village - Puta, Post Office And Police Station - Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - Smt. Chameli Bai W/o Devprakash Aged About 29 Years Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Puta, Post Office And Police Station - Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Tolga, Post Office Pondi, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Preeti D/o Devprakash Aged About 6 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Res. No. 1 Smt. Chameli Bai, Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Puta, Post Office And Police Station - Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Tolga, Post Office Pondi, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashu S/o Devprakash Aged About 4 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal/natural Guardian Mother Of The Res. No. 1 Smt. Chameli Bai, Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Puta, Post Office And Police Station - Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Village Tolga, Post Office Pondi, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Priya Kaiwartya, Advocate RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Priya Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) dated 26/11/2018 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock two children, respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely Preeti and Ashu, were born, who 3 are residing with respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., along with an interim application, claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and her children on the grounds that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family members for demand of dowry, and that due to such treatment she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 03.12.2017 and has since been residing at her parental house along with the children without any source of income. She further contended that the applicant, who runs a grocery shop earning about Rs.20,000/- per month, has neglected to maintain her and the children. The applicant, in reply, denied all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, and asserted that respondent No.1 voluntarily left his house without any sufficient or cogent reason and is residing separately at her own will, despite his efforts for reconciliation, including before the Women Cell. He further submitted that respondent No.1 is not entitled to any maintenance as she has deserted him without justification. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, by order dated 26.11.2018 in M.J.C. No.61/2018, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1, aggrieved by which the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the facts and 4 circumstances of the case. The learned Court has erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent without properly appreciating that the respondent, though admittedly the wife of the applicant, has been residing separately without any sufficient or cogent reason, despite repeated efforts made by the applicant for reconciliation, including proceedings before the Women Cell. The respondent has made false and exaggerated allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, whereas in fact she herself was unwilling to adjust in the matrimonial home and voluntarily chose to live with her parents. The Family Court further failed to consider that the respondent is well-educated, capable of maintaining herself, and also engaged in independent work, whereas the applicant is a person of limited means, earning only about Rs.6,000/- per month from a grocery shop, while also bearing the responsibility of maintaining his dependent family members. The award of maintenance is therefore excessive, unjustified, and unreasonable in light of the applicant’s financial condition and the respondent’s conduct, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, by order dated 26.11.2018 in M.J.C. No.61/2018, has rightly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and has passed a just and proper order. The Family Court, after considering the fact that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009 according to Hindu rites and that out of the said wedlock two minor children were born, correctly held that respondent No.1, who is residing separately along with the children after being subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry and having no independent source of income, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court further took into account the financial capacity of the applicant, who is engaged in running a grocery shop, and awarded a reasonable sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1, which is neither excessive nor arbitrary but proportionate to the needs of the respondent and her children as well as to the means of the applicant. The impugned order is thus legal, proper, and based on correct appreciation of facts and law. 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. 6 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan