1 2025:CGHC:42991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 460 of 2023 Netram Ratre S/o Firat Ram Ratre, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Girwani, P.S. Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh At Present Address - B.R.C.C. Office Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Ku. Anjali Ratre D/o Netram Ratre, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Sarsiwa, P.S. Sarsiwa, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Jyoti Ratre D/o Netram Ratre Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sarsiwa, P.S. Sarsiwa, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Lochan Devi W/o Netram Ratre Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sarsiwa, P.S. Sarsiwa, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Minor Satyaprakash Ratre S/o Netram Ratre Aged About 17 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lochan Devi W/o Netram Ratre, R/o Village Sarsiwa, P.S. Sarsiwa, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Minor Chetan Prakash Ratre S/o Netram Ratre Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lochan Devi W/o Netram Ratre, R/o Village Sarsiwa, P.S. Sarsiwa, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Family Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 101/2022 or granted maintenance amount of Rs. 16,000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant solemnized marriage with respondent no. 3 on 02.07.1998 according to Hindu customs, and out of their wedlock, four children were born, i.e., respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs. 60,000/- per month on the ground that the applicant, after the death of one Tikam during the Covid-19 pandemic, started residing with one Pallavi Kaur at village Sardha Bhatha and deserted respondent no. 3 along with the children, due to which respondent no. 3, having no independent source of livelihood, was compelled to live separately. It was alleged that the applicant, employed as an Assistant Teacher earning Rs. 80,000/- per month salary along with Rs. 5,00,000/- 3 annual income from property, neglected to maintain them. The applicant denied the allegations and contended that respondent no. 3 left him of her own will, and further claimed that he is bearing the educational expenses of respondents no. 1 and 2, hence the application was liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, by its order dated 28.02.2023, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 16,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record, inasmuch as respondent no. 3 voluntarily left the matrimonial home on her own will without any sufficient reason, despite the applicant never treating her with cruelty and continuously making efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship. The learned family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is earning a meagre salary as Assistant Teacher, has no agricultural land except one house, and is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, bearing the educational expenses of respondents no. 1 and 2, and paying personal loan installments. The respondents have not produced any cogent evidence regarding the applicant’s income, yet an exorbitant maintenance of Rs. 16,000/- per month has been awarded, which is excessive, unjustified and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant. The Family Court has further overlooked the fact that respondent no. 3 is residing separately with her sister 4 of her own accord after creating disputes without sufficient cause, thereby disentitling her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant solemnized marriage with respondent no. 3 on 02.07.1998 according to Hindu customs, and from the wedlock four children were born, namely respondents no. 1, 2, 4 and 5. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground that the applicant, after the death of one Tikam during the Covid-19 pandemic, started residing with another woman, namely Pallavi Kaur, at village Sardha Bhatha, thereby deserting respondent no. 3 and the children, due to which respondent no. 3, having no independent source of livelihood, was compelled to live separately. It was further established that the applicant is working as an Assistant Teacher and is also having substantial income from property, yet he neglected to maintain the respondents. The applicant’s plea that respondent no. 3 left him voluntarily and that he is bearing the educational expenses of respondents no. 1 and 2 was not substantiated by any credible evidence. Considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, Baloda Bazar, vide order dated 28.02.2023, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to be maintained by the applicant and 5 therefore justly directed him to pay Rs. 16,000/- per month as maintenance, which is fair, reasonable and in accordance with law. 6. Considering the submission 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan