1 2025:CGHC:30926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 818 of 2025 Narendra Manjhi S/o Rajeshwar Manjhi, Aged About 24 Years R/o- Village Foskotoli Police Chowki- Dokda P.S. and Tehsil- Kansabel District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Lalita Bai W/o- Narendra Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o- Bandhatoli P.S.- Tapkara Tehsil- Farsabahar District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2. Minor Harsh Manjhi S/o- Narendra Manjhi Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Lalita Bai R/o- Bandhatoli P.S.- Tapkara Tehsil- Farsabahar District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.33/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 144 of B.N.S.S.and it is PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.08 11:36:20 +0530 2 directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- (total Rs. 6,000/-) to the respondent No. 2/son, as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 married on 05.05.2022, in Jashpur, and had a daughter in February 2023, who unfortunately passed away due to medical reasons. Later, they had a son, respondent No. 2, born on 04.08.2024. However, respondent No. 1 alleged that her in-laws demanded she bring ₹1,25,000 (used for purchasing a tractor) from her parents, and upon her refusal, they began tormenting her. A social meeting was held where the applicant promised to change, but the alleged torture continued, leading respondent No. 1 to return to her parental home. She filed a maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on 25.10.2024. The applicant claimed financial weakness, earning only ₹200-300 from labor work, and alleged respondent No. 1 left due to her mother's influence. The Family Court, after recording statements, directed the applicant to pay ₹6,000 per month, with ₹3,000 each to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (their son). Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Kunkuri is moderately fallacy which is liable to be set-aside accordance with the evidence. There is no single piece of evidence which shows that the applicant or his parents have tortured the respondent No. 1 for demand of dowry in fact respondent No. 1 in her deposition has clearly stated that many times the applicant with his entire family has gone to her house and the respondent No. 1 has admitted that she stated that she will go to her matrimonial home but she never went to her matrimonial home which clearly shows the intention of 3 respondent No. 1 that she doesn't wants to live with the applicant as her wife. Respondent No. 1 is not ready to reside peacefully with the applicant, as she herself coercion the applicant to leave her matrimonial house. From the malafide intentions of the respondent No.1, she has stated that applicant is having huge amount of property including immovable property, whereby the applicant is only a labour earning sum of Rs. 200-300 daily which is also been taken into evidence, the illegitimate acts of the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is also depriving respondent No. 2 his father's affection and love as she is not allowing the respondent No. 2 to meet his father which the Learned Family Court ought to have seen the situation. Hence, the impugned order is liable 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 the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that on the basis of the documents presented by the respondent side and the facts accepted by the applicant in his cross-examination, respondent No.1/wife has a proper and sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant. Respondent No.1 is the legally married wife of the applicant, she has no source of income. Therefore, respondent No.1 is found to be entitled to receive maintenance amount every month from the applicant. There is no dispute in the case that respondent No.2 - Harsh Manjhi is the minor son of respondent No.1 and applicant, whose entire social and moral responsibility of maintenance and education is on the applicant. Respondent No.2 is the legitimate child of the applicant. Therefore, after considering all the above circumstances and the facts of the case, the application submitted by the applicants under Section 144 of the 4 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is partially accepted. 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 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti