1 2025:CGHC:24930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 409 of 2016 Uttara Kumar Kashyap S/o Sonsai Kashyap Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Khisora, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Supet Bai W/o Uttara Kumar Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o At Present Kamrid, P.S. Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Puja D/o Uttara Kumar Kashyap Aged About 10 Years Minor Through Her Mother Supet Bai, D/o Gaukaran, R/o At Present Kamrid, P.S. Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel the applicant. None appears for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in MJC No. 177/2013, whereby the learned RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.2/daughter. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that on 14.08.2013 the respondents filed application for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, Janjgir, that has been partly allowed at the rate of Rs. 1500/- for wife and Rs. 1500/- for daughter, total Rs. 3,000/- per month from 31.05.2016. According to the respondents the facts of the case mentioned in the application is that the respondent No.2 was married with the applicant on 01.05.2001. After one or two years of marriage daughter was born out from their wedlock, torturing her and subjecting to cruel behavior the husband deserted her by ousting from his residence on 20.10.2001. Denying the allegations and pleadings averred in the application, the husband/applicant herein pleaded that the wife stayed with husband from 04.02.2002 to 18.02.2002 after marriage and returned back, thereafter, her father carried her for going to Pithampur fair and after one month she returned. The respondent No.1/wife again went to her father's house from there she did not come back. When the applicant went to carry her at her father's home, her father forcibly detained him for 15 days. Her quarrelsome behavior is not tolerable. She has 3 deserted him for more than 12-13 years. There is no possibility of their settlement. The learned Family Court partly allowed the application and granted maintenance allowances a sum of Rs. 1500/- for wife and Rs. 1500/- for daughter, total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicants. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Family Court is against the law and facts. The appreciation of evidence made by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and on facts. The monthly income of the husband is wrongly assessed by the learned Family Court. The details of income drawn was not properly been appreciated and made appreciation arbitrarily. The maintenance allowance granted a sum of Rs. 1500/- for wife and Rs. 1500/- for daughter, total Rs. 3,000/- per month is excessive and arbitrary in the present circumstances of the present case. The applicant/husband has to maintain his father and mother but the learned Family Court did not consider these facts. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set- aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and 4 considering the conditions of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- for wife and Rs. 1500/- for daughter, total Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents vide impugned order dated 31.03.2016, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar