1 2025:CGHC:41314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 577 of 2024 Hemlal Nishad S/o Santu Nishad, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mudhena, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Dhaneshwari Nishad W/o Hemlal Nishad, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Mudhena, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Suraj Nagar, Labhandi, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Bhumi @ Bittu, D/o Hemlal Nishad, Aged About 2 Year 6 Month Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mohter Dhaneshwari Nishad (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Village Mudhena, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Suraj Nagar, Labhandi, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2025 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.432/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), seeking grant of maintenance. In the said application, it was submitted that, owing to the cruelty meted out by the husband and his family members, the respondents (wife and child) are presently compelled to reside in her matrimonial home. It was further stated that the husband is engaged in labour work on a contractual basis, earning Rs. 400–500/- per day, amounting to approximately Rs. 15,000/- per month, and in addition thereto, he earns around Rs. 4,00,000/- per annum from agricultural activities by cultivating vegetables. On these grounds, the wife claimed total maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the husband. 3. Thereafter, the husband filed his reply, wherein he denied the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the 3 parties has directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance as aforementioned to the respondents. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, as the wife voluntarily left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause despite the applicant’s willingness to keep her and the child. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, a poor daily wager earning only Rs. 2,400–3,000/- per month with dependent parents, cannot afford the excessive maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month, particularly when the wife is capable of maintaining herself and earns Rs. 10,000–12,000/- per month. The allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are false, there being no such custom in the Nishad community, and during counselling at the Mahila Police Station, the wife refused to live with the applicant and insisted only on maintenance. The learned Family Court did not properly assess the facts, evidence, and actual financial status of the applicant before passing the order, which is liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per 4 month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing the evidence of respondent No. 1 remains unchallenged in cross- examination and is supported by her written complaint (Ex. P-01) and police intimation (Ex. P-02), both recording incidents of abuse and assault by the applicant. The applicant has produced no evidence in his defence. On the basis of the material on record, it is established that respondent No. 1 has “sufficient cause” to live separately from the applicant. Furthermore, it is held that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and, along with respondent No. 2, the minor daughter, is entitled to maintenance from the applicant who is morally and legally bound to support them. Considering the circumstances and standard of living of both parties, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil