1 2025:CGHC:34931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 473 of 2022 Ravi Kumar Patel S/o Ramlal Patel Aged About 26 Years Profession- Agriculture And Vegetable Business And Labour Under Rojgaar Guarantee R/o Village - Lamgaon, P.S. - Batoli, Tahsil - Lundra, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sunanda Patel W/o Ravi Patel Aged About 24 Years Profession - Dependent R/o Village - Lamgaon, P.S. Lundra, (Dhorpur), Tahsil- Lundra, Post Lamgaon, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Misti D/o Ravi Patel Aged About 09 Month, Minor Through Her Mother Non Applicant No. 1 Smt. Sunanda Patel, R/o Village - Lamgaon, P.S. Lundra, (Dhorpur), Tahsil- Lundra, Post Lamgaon, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 10:58:08 +0530 2 No.69/2018, whereby the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed and applicant has directed to pay amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter till she attains adulthood. 2. The brief facts of the case is that respondent No.1(wife), along with her minor daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹6,000 per month for herself and ₹4,000 per month for her daughter from her husband. In the application, it was alleged that the marriage between the parties took place in 2013, and a daughter (respondent No. 2) was born out of the wedlock. After one year of marriage, the husband began abusing the wife and pressuring her to bring ₹2,00,000 and to have a piece of land transferred to his name by her father. During her pregnancy, the husband neglected her, which led to a miscarriage. She was not provided proper food or nourishment in her matrimonial home. The husband asked his mother-in-law to take the wife back to her maternal home and subsequently made a false complaint against her. She was threatened and ultimately driven out of the matrimonial house. While staying at her matrimonial home, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. However, he continued to neglect the wife, leading her to file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The matter was compromised, and proceedings were closed. The wife later resumed living with the husband and became pregnant. During this time, the husband again left her at her maternal home, where she gave birth to their daughter (respondent No. 2). On 10.12.2017, the husband contracted a second marriage. Since then, he has not cared for the wife or daughter, who are without means of 3 livelihood. The husband, on the other hand, has a source of income. Therefore, maintenance of ₹6,000 for the wife and ₹4,000 for the minor daughter is sought. 3. The applicant/husband denied the allegations. He claimed that after marriage, the wife frequently visited her maternal home, leading to intervention by a Panchayat. On 06.01.2015, he filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, resulting in counseling after which the wife returned to live with him. He denied ever demanding money or land. When the wife left again and failed to return, he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In response, the wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. However, a compromise was reached on 28.09.2016, and she resumed cohabitation with him. On 03.02.2017, she again left the matrimonial home and has since resided at her maternal home. He denied contracting a second marriage. He also stated that the wife earns ₹10,000 per month by giving tuition, and that he is unemployed and of feeble mind, unable to maintain himself. He contended that the wife deserted him of her own will and is thus not entitled to maintenance. After considering the evidence of both parties, the Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of ₹1,500 per month to the wife and ₹1,500 per month to the daughter, holding that the husband had driven the wife out and failed to provide for her and the child. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court erred in law in allowing the application for maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife 4 was not subjected to any cruelty and is living separately of her own volition. The finding that the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home is incorrect; she left on her own and is unwilling to return. The learned Family Court not consider that the husband has no substantial income, no property, and is unable to maintain himself. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the husband is willing to cohabit with the wife, but she is unwilling to live with him. The applicant/husband is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the Court. The applicant/husband’s income was not proven by the wife; hence, no maintenance could have been justifiably awarded. The wife filed the maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only after the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, suggesting it was retaliatory. The earlier dispute between the parties was resolved through compromise, and the wife resumed cohabitation with the husband, which indicates his willingness to live with her. The wife is residing separately without any justifiable reason and is therefore not entitled to maintenance under the law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the father of applicant, namely, Ramlal, has stated from the beginning that Ravi Kumar Patel/applicant is weak in intellect. The applicant, namely, Ravi Kumar Patel has been examined in Court, where he gave his statement very well Ravi Kumar Patel may be mentally weak, but he is not mentally retarded. He is capable of working and supporting himself and his family. In his reply, the applicant stated that he owns only 0.275 hectares of land in his name. The respondent No.1, namely, 5 Smt. Sunanda Patel, has claimed that applicant’s father owns 5 acres of agricultural land and that applicant earns about ₹5,000 per month through work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme. She also stated that he earns an additional ₹10,000 per month by selling cow milk. Therefore, the applicant is capable of maintaining the respondents through his work. Although he does not have a fixed income, it would be just and proper to direct him to pay ₹1,500 per month to each respondents. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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