1 2025:CGHC:24951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 79 of 2017 Hetram S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 32 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Bulakitola, Thana Kelhari , District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1. Kewalpati W/o Hetram Aged About 30 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Amara, Thana Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Ritesh Kumar Singh S/o Hetram Aged About 2 Years Being Minor Through Mother Kewalpati, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Hetram, By Caste Gond, R/o Village Amara, Thana Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Family Court Manendragarh, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.93/2015, whereby the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:12 +0530 2 learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondents and granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife- Kewalpati and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2/son, Ritesh Kumar Singh. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the applicant/husband with the respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2011 by performing Mandap Gadhakar Bhawar and from their married life respondent No. 02 has been born. After marriage when she went to her in-laws' house for the first time, her mother-in-law taunted her for not bringing any goods and not getting a motorcycle. At that time she stayed for two days and came back to her brother's house and when she went to her in-laws' house again, she stayed for one and a half months, even at that time the applicant and family members demanded more goods and motorcycle in dowry. The applicant used to beat her, she informed her parents about this, then her parents came and took her to her maternal home and explained to the applicant, then the respondent No. 1 said that he was just saying this and took her with him, then she stayed in her in-laws house for four-five months, during that time also he kept beating and harassing her, and used to say that she informs her family, then one day in frustration she left to go to her maternal home, then on the way the applicant met her and beat her and snatched her jewellery etc. and said that if she report, he will come to her home and beat her. After that she came to her maternal home, where the respondent No.2 was born. On giving information about him and performing Chhatti Puja, the applicant did not come and came after four-five days and asked her to 3 leave immediately. The family members explained that the child is small, do not take him away now, but he threatened and took her away and the same behaviour continued at home again, then she came to her maternal home again. Due to this harassment by the applicant, she is living in her maternal home. The applicant does not maintain them. While he has 7-8 acres of agricultural land and works as a contractor, which gives him sufficient income, while the respondents are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, the respondents requested for a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000-3,000/- each. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ husband submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad, illegal perverse and contrary to law and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case material available on record. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not considered that it was only the paper income of labour as per Collectorate rate, actually labour are earning less and further they are not getting work daily, hence, she is not entitled for maintenance. He also submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is apparently without application of mind and hence the said order of the Family Court deserves to be set aside of the maintenance amount of the respondents applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the applicant filed this Criminal Revision to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 for awarding the maintenance 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 4 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/husband works as a labourer. The daily wage of a semi- skilled worker for the period 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2016 has been fixed by the Labour Department as Rs. 209.63 and monthly wage as Rs. 6289/-. Certainly, the applicant cannot be considered to be earning less than this amount. The respondent/wife does not do any work and her son is young. It can be easily estimated that the minimum amount for the maintenance of an adult is Rs. 3000/- and for a minor it is Rs. 1500/-. Here, it is necessary to consider the financial condition of both the parties. When the applicant is a wage earner and his income is about Rs. 6289/- as mentioned above. In such a situation, it would be justified to provide maintenance allowance of Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent No. 2, totaling Rs. 3000/- per month. 7. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is 5 hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as original record, to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti