1 2025:CGHC:34942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 41 of 2022 Hem Lal Kaiwartya S/o Late Shri Jodhi Ram Kaiwartya Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Dudpaar, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Indira Colony, Kasdol, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Uttara Bai Kaiwartya W/o Shri Hem Lal Kaiwartya Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Mudpaar, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Rashmi Kaiwartya D/o Shri Hem Lal Kaiwartya Aged About 11 Years Through Her Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Uttara Bai Kaiwartya, R/o Village Mudpaar, Police Station And Tehsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgahr ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Family PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.23 10:58:09 +0530 2 Court, Baloda-Bazar, District – Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.49/2021, whereby the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed and applicant has directed to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter till she attains the age of majority. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000 per month. She stated that she was married to the applicant approximately 20–21 years ago in Village Changori, according to Hindu and caste customs. After the marriage, she lived with the applicant at his residence, and four children were born from their wedlock: Gunjay (18 years), Yogita (14 years), Rashmi (11 years), and Pushkar (10 years). Currently, Respondent No. 2 (Pushkar) resides with Respondent No. 1. It was stated that the couple lived together peacefully for about 15 years. However, thereafter, the applicant's behavior changed, and he allegedly began physically and mentally abusing respondent No. 1over trivial matters. Eventually, he beat her and threw her out of the house located at Indira Colony, Kasdol. Since then, respondent No. 1 has been residing in Village Mudpar. After being abandoned, the respondents approached the Kaiwartya Samaj in 2019, which held a community meeting and directed the applicant to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. The applicant failed to comply with this direction. The respondent then filed a complaint at Police Station Kasdol, where she was issued a memo under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 1 claimed that she has no source of income and is unable to support herself. Respondent No. 2, a minor daughter, is 3 studying in Class 6, and maintenance is required for her upbringing. She further stated that the applicant is employed as a lecturer at Government Higher Secondary School, Kosmsara, earning a salary of ₹55,000– ₹60,000 per month. He also earns around ₹40,000 annually from 2 acres of agricultural land and owns a house in Indira Colony, Kasdol. Hence, she claimed ₹30,000 per month as maintenance. 3. The applicant denied all adverse allegations made in the maintenance application. He claimed that the respondents left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and denied having subjected them to any cruelty. He also stated that respondent No. 2 is staying with respondent No. 1 without his consent and has been forcibly kept by her. The applicant has always been willing to live with the respondents, but respondent No. 1/wife has refused without justification. The applicant contended that respondent No. 1 is residing in Village Mudpar and is cultivating his agricultural land, earning ₹40,000–₹50,000 annually. She is also engaged in other income-generating activities and is financially capable of maintaining herself. The applicant is currently living in a rented house in Kasdol with the other three children, who are studying in private schools. He has taken life insurance policies in their names and also has a vehicle loan. The children's educational expenses, including tuition fees, are being borne by him. He reiterated that he is always ready and willing to live with the respondents and take care of the family. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, and bad in law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court in awarding ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents, which is contrary to the documents and material available 4 on record. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No. 1 herself admitted in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she was residing in the applicant’s house at Village Mudpar and cultivating his agricultural land. Despite this, she left the village without valid reason and moved to her parental home. The Family Court erroneously assessed the applicant’s agricultural income as ₹50,000/- per month and total income as ₹1,00,000/- per month, which is factually incorrect. The Family Court did not take into account the applicant's financial liabilities, including responsibility for two minor children and aged parents who are dependent on him. The applicant is employed in the armed forces, is frequently posted outside the state, and faces genuine difficulty in managing family responsibilities. The Family Court also failed to consider that Respondent No. 1 is living separately without sufficient reason and is not fulfilling her duties as a wife and mother. The maintenance awarded is excessive in view of the applicant's actual income, liabilities, and expenses. The agricultural income claimed by the respondents is from ancestral property, which is jointly held by other family members and not solely in the applicant's name. The order awarding maintenance was passed without due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5 7. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that respondent No. 01 is the wife of the applicant and respondent No. 02 is his daughter. The applicant is responsible for their maintenance. During cross-examination by the applicant, he has admitted that he receives a salary of 50 thousand rupees per month and in addition to this, the applicant also receives income from agricultural land. According to that, the applicant's monthly income is determined to be one lakh rupees. Then the respondents have the right to receive maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- each, total Rs. 10,000/-. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti