1 2025:CGHC:31333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 618 of 2019 J. Raju S/o Shri J. Tata Aged About 41 Years R/o M.I.G.-1/897, Hudko Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. J. Hemlata W/o J. Raju Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 10/750, Sector 1, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. J. Deepika D/o J. Raju Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. J. Hemlata, R/o House No. 10/750, Sector 1, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai, P.S. Khamtarai, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav holding the brief of Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.608/2014, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that tt is an admitted fact in this case that both parties are husband and wife, and they have a 12-year-old daughter, Kumari J. Deepika, born from their wedlock. Before the marriage, it was represented that the applicant had a fixed deposit of Rs.2 lakhs in his name in the bank, and his mother had Rs.4 lakhs deposited in the post office. The applicant's two elder brothers were in government jobs, so they did not need this money. The applicant received Rs.1 lakh in cash and a Hero Honda motorcycle as dowry. However, 20 days after the marriage, the applicant demanded Rs.1 lakh from the respondent’s father to appear for the B.Ed. entrance exam. Although the respondent’s father gave Rs.5,000/-, the applicant did not allow the respondent to take the exam. Later, the applicant demanded Rs.30,000/- from the respondent’s father for a computer business, but instead started demanding a motorcycle. When the respondent’s father asked for the return of the Rs.30,000/-, the applicant and his parents began to harass the respondent No.1, repeatedly alleging that no dowry was given. The respondent No.1’s sister-in-law also subjected her to physical and mental harassment. Despite being pregnant, the applicant and his family members did not take care of the respondent. After 3 the birth of their daughter, the respondent No.1’s father bore the delivery expenses. The respondent claims that she lives with her parents due to these reasons and asserts that the applicant is financially capable, while she has no source of income. Their daughter is currently studying in 6th grade. The respondents has prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter the applicant filed his reply denying the allegations as alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has awarded maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, which she herself admitted that she wants to reside with the applicant. He further submits that the Family Court ought to have held that decree has been passed in favour of the applicant by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide judgment dated 19.01.2016, whereby it is ordered that the respondent No.1 shall forthwith join the society of applicant J.Raju and must restore the conjugal rights alongwith him and lead her conjugal life in her matrimonial home. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance considering the income and expenses of both parties, the current inflation rate, their standard of living, and all relevant circumstances, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil