1 2025:CGHC:34612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 45 of 2023 Samrat Lal Patle S/o Kartik Ram Patle Aged About 68 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village - Jawali, Police Station- Bongimongra, Tahsil - Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Kirtan Bai Patle W/o Samrath Lal Patle Aged About 50 Years Caste Satnami, R/o - Paraghat (Jairamnagar), Police Station- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Sachima Patle D/o Samrath Lal Patle Aged About 20 Years Caste Satnami, R/o - Paraghat (Jairamnagar), Police Station- Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Chopra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.638/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 11:30:33 +0530 2 the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 4,000/- to respondent No.1/wife and rejected the application with respect to the respondent No.2/daughter. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1 married with the applicant about 30 years ago. After the marriage, the applicant got involved in wrongdoings and started drinking alcohol and became gambler and spent most of the income on it. When respondent No. 1 tried to stop the applicant, he harassed and abused, further stopped maintaining them and further threw them from the house. The respondents are not having out of any means thereafter for her livelihood but sometimes respondent No. 1 works as daily wager and by this way earns for her daughter. The applicant could not file the reply of the above to deny the allegations made in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the case was concluded as ex-parte. The learned trial Court after taking evidence of only one party i.e. applicants, has allowed the application and has granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the applicant No. 1 herein. Since the order impugned passed by the trial Court is apparently bad in law, the applicant challenges the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order is alleged to be contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case. The Family Court erred in awarding Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No. 1 as maintenance, without considering crucial facts. The applicant claims he was unaware of the proceedings due to COVID-19 restrictions and distance, leading to an ex-parte decision on 20.07.2022. The applicant, aged 68, is a retired compressor operator mostly dependent on his children, which should be considered when determining maintenance. 3 The applicant had no chance to reply to the Section 125 CrPC application, which could have provided relevant details about the relationship. The case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State of Gujarat (2005) emphasizes that a claimant under Section 125 must establish they are the wife of the person concerned. The maintenance amount fixed is considered excessive given the applicant's age and pension of Rs. 19,312. The applicant wasn't given a proper chance to present evidence, necessitating a fresh hearing. The impugned order is allegedly based on conjecture and surmises, making it liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that respondent No.02/daugther, namely, Sachima Kurre is married. For this reason, respondent No.2 is not entitled to receive any amount of maintenance. The respondent No.1 is uninterruptedly living separately from her husband and residing with her parents. As much as the parents have the property, when the respondent No.1 is not earning any income herself, the responsibility of maintaining the respondent No.1 is on the applicant. In view of the extended, inflation of the present time, it is sufficient and appropriate to get the monthly maintenance amount of Rs 4,000/-. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order 4 and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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