1 2025:CGHC:2521 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 66 of 2025 Ashwani Banjare S/o Shri Bisheshwar Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kareli Patelpara, Police Station Bori, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of Certified Copy Of Impugned Order As Madho Prasad Sahu Aged About 35 Years S/o Shri Jilal Sahu R/o Village Kasdol, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Geetanjali Banjare W/o Ashwani Banjare Aged About 30 Years, 2 - Ku. Nishtha Banjare D/o Ashwani Banjare Aged About 07 Years Minor- Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Geetanjali Banjar, Both are R/o Ward No. 12 Rajim Police Station And Tehsil Rajim District Gariaband (C.G.) Currently Residing Smt. Pratibha Kaushal Behind New Puraina Church, Rani Durgavati Ward No. 50 Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 15/01/2025 Heard. 2 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No.680/2024 (Annexure A-6), whereby the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance filed by the non-applicants has been partly allowed, so far as it relates to the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1-wife. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the present non-applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur to get the monthly maintenance amounting to Rs 50,000/- (Rs.30,000/- to applicant No.1/wife and Rs.20,000/- to applicant No.2/ daughter) from the present applicant stating inter alia that marriage between applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 04/06/2015 according to Hindu customs in Rajim, District Gariaband (C.G.) and from their wedlock Ku. Nishtha Banjare (applicant No.2) was born on 12/08/2016. After examination of evidence, the learned Family Court finds that, no order can be passed on the merits of cruelty and income of the applicant herein. The Respondents are the wife and daughter of the applicant, whose maintenance is the responsibility of the applicant. Therefore, the application of the respondents for interim maintenance is partially accepted and it is ordered that the applicant pays Rs.10,000/- to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.5,000/- to Non- applicant No.2 (Total Rs.15,000/-). Hence, this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order of the learned Principal Judge of Family Court is based on the concocted and false story of the non-applicant No.1/wife. He further contended that all the allegations leveled by the non- applicant/wife against the present applicant is common in nature and without any documentary evidence. He further contended that the impugned order of monthly maintenance Rs.10,000/- to non-applicant No.1/wife is illogic and if this Hon'ble Court not set aside the impugned order and allowed it to stand it would cause irreparable loss/ injury to this applicant and miscarriage of justice. Hence, it is prayed that pleased to allow the instant petition and quash the impugned order dated 04/10/2024 (Annexure A-6) so far it relates to the maintenance amount Rs.10,000/- to the non-applicant No.1/wife, in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it transpires that the applicant is a Government Teacher and his monthly income is Rs.65,000/- per month and wife of the applicant is a tutor and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, Rs.3,000/- get from the Government scheme and running a grocery shop and she is struggling to support herself, hence, the Family Court awarded the maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant is husband of the respondent No.1, has to pay the said maintenance amount as awarded by the Family Court. 4 6. Further, on perusal of the order under challenge, it is evident that the learned Family Court has discussed the factors while arriving at a finding is just and proper. From perusal of the same, it is evident that the applicant and respondent were married according to their customs and due to the harassment by the applicant, respondent had to reside separately. Thereafter, she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself. The respondents have been living separately from the applicant after they were deserted and hence, the learned Family Court has rightly determined the amount of maintenance to the respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). 7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant