1 2025:CGHC:29187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 40 of 2020 Ramesh Agrawal S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Aged About 36 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Brahma Road, Panchshil Gali, Maa Mahamaya Mobile Centre, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Priya Agrawal W/o Ramesh Agrawal Aged About 32 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Bilaspur Chowk Manipur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. C.Jayant K.Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.82/2015, whereby the application made by the applicant under Section 127(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:06 +0530 2 of the order dated 03.12.2014, passed by Family Court, Ambikapur, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/2010 whereby the Family Court granted Rs. 1,500/- each total Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant and her daughter as monthly maintenance has been rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 27.09.2019. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized in the year 2007. After two years of marriage the applicant and respondent residing separately. One daughter, namely, Bhavi Agrawal took birth from the wedlock. The respondent filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby the Family Court, Ambikapur vide order dated 03.12.2014 granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month each to respondent and her daughter. The applicant aggrieved by the order preferred a revision having Criminal Revision No. 142/2015, whereby the Hon'ble Court pleased to direct the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents. Finally, the above criminal revision has been dismissed on 23.11.2017. In the meanwhile the respondent selected and appointed to the post of Patwari. On the above ground the applicant made an application under section 127(2) of the Cr.P.C. as the applicant not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance. The respondent was selected as Patwari on September, 2014 and she also completed her training and getting a salary of Rs. 20,475/- as per the salary slip of January, 2016. The applicant is also having responsibility of his old parents. Hence, the instant revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order is illegal, incorrect and improper. The learned Family Court has 3 misconceived the law and also misconceived the facts involved in the case while dismissing the application of the applicant under section 127(2) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court ought to have held that the respondent was selected as Patwari on September, 2014 and she also completed her training and getting a salary of Rs. 20,475/- as per the salary slip of January, 2016. The learned Family Court ought to have held that the applicant is running Mobile Repairing Shop and from the above it is very difficult for the applicant to pay the entire amount in lump-sum. The learned Family Court ought to have held that the applicant is suffering from cancer and require continuous treatment. The learned Family Court ought to have held that the applicant is having no independent source of income, whereas the respondent is a Patwari and getting salary per month. Further, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband 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. 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 respondent Priya Agarwal did not receive any income during the pendency of the order dated 03.12.2014 passed against Ramesh Agarwal/applicant in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 02/2010. Further, the Patwari training was conducted between 01.09.2014 to 31.08.2015 and during that period the respondent/wife received stipend of Rs. 2,000/- per month 4 as per Chhattisgarh Government order dated 06.02.2015. stipend cannot be termed as income of respondent. On the basis of the above conclusion, it would not be appropriate to terminate the maintenance amount being received by the respondent Smt. Priya Agarwal in compliance with the order dated 03.12.2014 in the said Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 02/2010, hence the application under Section 127 (2) CrPC filed by the applicant/Ramesh Agarwal is dismissed. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti