1 2025:CGHC:27701 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 682 of 2019 Tarun S/o Mohan Das Bargo Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Akoli, Police Station - Nandghat, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus 1. Anita Bargo W/o Tarun Bargo, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Akoli, Police Station - Nandghat, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Damapur Bazar, Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., 2. Vinay Kumar S/o Tarun Bargo Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Namely - Anita Bargo , R/o Village - Akoli, Police Station - Nandghat, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o Damapur Bazar, Police Station - Kunda, Tahsil - Pandariya, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.619/2018, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:46:59 +0530 2 whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondents and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2/son. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that respondent No.1 was married to the applicant about nine years ago and out of said wedlock; they were blessed with two sons. It is averred that, after 2 years of marriage, the applicant herein and his family members started ill-treating respondent No. 1 for demand of dowry and for bringing motor cycle. It is also averred that all the family members ill-treated her for about 6-7 years and one year prior to filling the application, respondent No. 1 was thrown out of the house and since then respondent No. 1 is residing with her parents and her elder son has been taken away by the applicant herein. Respondent No. 1 has no source of earning and hence, she is unable to maintain herself and his younger son, whereas the applicant herein has sufficient means of earning from Fancy store and agricultural land and hence, she be granted Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 3000/-for respondent No. 2 herein. It is submitted that, the applicant herein was proceeded Ex- parte on 25.02.19 and immediately on 05.03.19 the impugned order has been passed, considering the averments of the respondents as gospel truth. It is submitted that, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is absolutely unjust, unreasonable and illegal and same has been passed on the basis of conjuncture and surmises and therefore, same deserves to be set-aside. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is erroneous, unjust, 3 unreasonable and illegal and same has been passed on the basis of conjuncture and surmises, therefore, same deserves to be set-aside. He further submits that the respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife and therefore, she is not entitled for mainteance but because of the fact that, the applicant did not get any opportunity to contest the case, therefore, impugned order has been passed and hence same is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that, in-fact, it was the respondent No. 1 who left the matrimonial house without there being anything against her, and thus, it is clear that, she is residing separately, without any sufficient reason and hence, not entitled for any maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent No.1 was married to the applicant about nine years ago. Respondent No.1 and applicant have two sons from their married life, out of which the elder son is with the applicant and the younger son respondent No.2- Vinay is with respondent No.1. The applicant has a total of 25 acres of agricultural land in village Akoli and Nadghat and has a big grocery shop. The applicant does the work of buying and selling grains and the he has a tractor and other goods carriers. As a result, the applicant earns an income of fifty lakh rupees from all sources. The applicant has beaten up respondent No. 01 in the name of dowry and thrown her out of the house, due to which respondent No.1 is living in her maternal home. The respondents do not have any means of livelihood. Despite being capable, the applicant is being negligent in the maintenance of the respondents which has not been challenged by the applicant. For 4 the above reason, it is found to be proved that respondent No. 01 Anita, wife of the applicant and respondent No. 02 Vinay, are minor son of the applicant, who are unable to maintain themselves. Despite being a person with sufficient means, the non-applicant is being negligent in the maintenance of the applicants. For the above reasons, it is also found to be proved that sufficient reasons have been shown for respondent No. 01 to live separately from the applicant. Keeping in view the standard of living of both the parties and the financial condition of the applicant/husband, it seems reasonable for him to give maintenance amount of of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2/son. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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