1 2025:CGHC:34967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 134 of 2023 1 - Basarat Ali S/o Late Shri Rajjak Ali Aged About 30 Years R/o Ashok Nagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Reshma Begam W/o Basrat Ali Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Jamtara, Post Alanda, P.S. Sindekela, District Balangir, Orissa. 2 - Nasfisa B. D/o Shri Basarat Ali Aged About 7 Years Through Legal Natural Guardian Her Father Basarat Ali, Son Of Late Shri Rajjak Ali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ashok Nagar, P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the non- applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in M. J. C. Case No. 569/2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging that she was married to the applicant on 26.04.2009, and a daughter (non-applicant no. 2) was born from their wedlock. She claimed that within 3–4 months of marriage, the applicant and his family members began harassing and mentally torturing her over inadequate dowry and also made repeated demands for money. She further stated that the applicant is employed as a cameraman in a film institution, earning approximately ₹50,000 per month, while she has no independent source of income. Therefore, she sought ₹15,000 per month as maintenance. In response, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations. After framing issues and considering the evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 04.07.2019, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹6,000 per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by 3 the applicant. The non-applicant-wife has suppressed material facts, particularly that the minor daughter (non-applicant no. 2) is residing with the applicant, who has been solely bearing her expenses and care; hence, non-applicant no. 1 has no right to claim maintenance on behalf of the child. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate this fact and erred in granting maintenance for non-applicant no. 2. Furthermore, the non-applicant-wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and has not proven that the applicant earns enough to pay the awarded maintenance. The applicant, with a very limited income, also supports his dependent daughter and aged parents, and has no other earning members in the family. It is also relevant that the non- applicant exerted pressure on the applicant to live separately from his joint family and misbehaved with his family members, eventually leaving the matrimonial home on her own and choosing to live with her financially well-off parents. The maintenance claim appears to have been filed with the intent to harass the applicant and his family. Moreover, there is no evidence of cruelty or ill-treatment by the applicant; rather, he consistently tried to maintain the marital relationship. In view of the entire facts and circumstances, the impugned maintenance order deserves to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court on 04.07.2019 is just, legal, and based on proper appreciation of evidence and circumstances of the case. The Court rightly considered the non-applicant-wife’s allegations of harassment and dowry demands soon after marriage, along with her claim that she has no independent source of income. It also took note of the fact that a daughter was born from the wedlock and that the applicant is working as a cameraman in a film institution with a considerable monthly income. Despite the applicant’s denial, he failed to rebut the material facts or prove that the non-applicant is self-sufficient. The Family Court, after evaluating the needs of the wife and child and the financial capacity of the applicant, reasonably fixed ₹6,000 per month as maintenance. The order upholds the objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance for the wife and thus warrants no interference. 8. Considering the submission 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan