1 2025:CGHC:31310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 453 of 2021 1. Mohanmati Alias Mahika W/o Virendra Baghel Aged About 25 Years Caste - Satnami And Presently Residing At Village Bisanpur, P.S. And Tehsil - Bilaigadh, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), 2. Ku. Chausima (Minor) D/o Virendra Kumar Aged About 3 Years Caste - Satnami And Presently Residing At Village Bisanpur, P.S. And Tehsil - Bilaigadh, Distt. - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) Through Legal Guardian Her Mother Mohanmati Alias Mahika. ... Applicants versus Virendra S/o Dvasram Baghel Aged About 27 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o P.S. Birra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.363/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 12:02:12 +0530 2 Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter and rejected the application with respect to applicant No.1/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 married the respondent in 2014, and they had a daughter. Soon after the marriage, the respondent demanded a motorcycle from the applicant's parents, and upon her inability to fulfill this demand, he began beating her frequently and eventually threw her out of the matrimonial home. The respondent also allegedly used to snatch her hard-earned money to buy liquor and beat her under its influence. The matter was reported to the police, and the applicant was forced to return to her father's house. Later, a social meeting was held, and an agreement was executed where the respondent promised to take the applicant back and not mistreat her. However, after she rejoined him and became pregnant, the respondent resumed his ill-treatment, including physical assault. The applicant gave birth to their daughter at her parental home, and despite being informed, the respondent refused to care for them, even cursing them. The applicant later discovered that the respondent was living with another woman and had another child. Due to financial difficulties, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for monthly maintenance. The trial Court partially allowed the application, and the applicants are challenging this order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that under Section 125 of the CrPC, the wife's statement that she is unable to maintain herself is sufficient, and it is for the husband to prove otherwise. It has been consistently held by Courts that a claimant wife's averment of having no means for survival is 3 adequate. The applicant No. 1 is a legally wedded wife, and applicant No. 2 is the respondent's daughter, making it mandatory for the respondent to provide adequate maintenance. The respondent has ancestral farm property managed by him and his family, and as the applicant No. 1 is a legally wedded wife and daughter-in-law, she is entitled to monthly maintenance to lead a life with dignity. The Family Court's order rejecting the applicant No. 1's claim for maintenance is erroneous, unjust, unreasonable, and illegal, passed without appreciating the facts and grounds raised by the applicants. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that there is no sufficient reason for the applicant No.1 to live separately from the respondent. Hence, she is not entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. It is accepted that applicants No.02 is children of the respondent who is living separately from the respondent with their mother applicant No.1. In that situation, it is the moral responsibility and duty of the respondent to maintain applicants No. 2. Hence, it would be justified to get maintenance amount from the respondent to applicants No. 2. Therefore, the application is accepted in respect of applicants No.2 and the application is rejected in respect of applicant No. /wife. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order 4 passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present 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