1 / 4 2025:CGHC:6274 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 671 of 2024 1 - Shrish Ayodhyawasi S/o Late Krishna Kumar Ayodhyawashi, Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Durga Chowk Ward, No. 10, Dhawalpur, P.S. Mainpur, Gariyaband District- Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. … Applicant versus 1 - Damini Ayodhyawasi W/o Shrish Ayodhyawasi D/o Shri Rajesh Soni Aged About 28 Years 2 - Minor Shivanshi Ayodhyawasi Aged About 4.5 Years, 3 - Minor Akshat @ Shivansh Ayodhyawasi Aged About 2.5 Years, Respondents No.2 and 3 father is Shrish Ayodhyawasi Respondents No.2 & 3 are through Legal Guardian Mother Damini Ayodhyawasi All R/o Kushalpur Adarsh Nagar, In Front of Soni Mobile Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 30/05/2024 passed by the Family Court Raipur, District Raipur in ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.13 10:58:59 +0530 2 / 4 Criminal MCC No.515/2023 wherein the family Court has granted Rs.11,000/- (Rs.5000/- for Respondent No.1 and Rs.3000-3000/- for Respondents No.2 & 3)) per month maintenance to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of this case are that that the respondents have filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- for respondents per month against the applicant stating therein that on 16.05.2017, the applicant had solemnized marriage along with applicant no. 1/respondent no. 1 according to Hindu Custom since then the respondent no. 1 was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house and on their wedlock, the respondent no. 2 and 3 born on 07.10.2018 and 10.09.2020. It was further alleged/stated that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members were harassing and torturing in the name of bad her character and less then dowry and he did not take care to the respondents and the applicant had also demanded dowry from the respondent no. 1, and hence the respondent no. 1 left at her matrimonial house and residing with respondent no. 2 and 3 at her parental house. It was further averred that respondent no. 1 has no any source of income to survival and applicant has given house for rent and on account of his work, the applicant earns Rs. 12,000/- per month and also having agricultural land of 8 acres from which he obtained amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- annual income and also having two tractors and like this the applicant has obtained amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence the respondents had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting total maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month against the applicant. 3 / 4 3. The applicant also filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and it is stated that the respondent no. 1 has quarreled with the applicant without any reasons and respondent has left at her matrimonial house. 4. The learned family Court after examining the witnesses and after recording the evidence and framing issued allowed the maintenance application of the respondents and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 11,000/- (5000/- for respondents no. 1 and Rs. 3000-3000/- for respondents no. 2 and 3 (and 3 till their majority) per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent No.1 is well educated and working as Nurse in the private nursing home and she is receiving a salary of Rs.25000/- per month, therefore, she is capable to maintain herself. He would next contend that the applicant is a very poor person and working under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Rojgar Guarantee, therefore, he is not able to pay maintenance. Therefore, he would submit that the instant revision may be allowed and the order dated 30/05/2024 may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the family Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. On perusal of the documents, I have found that the husband/applicant works as Teacher in the village; he has two tractors, though the 4 / 4 submission has been made that the same have been confiscated but no document with respect to confiscation has been produced; he has three acres of land and earlier he was implicated for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. In the cross-examination the applicant has stated that he possesses a car and go on his job by the car. He also admitted that he used to run a clinic and used to work as a doctor. Further in his cross-examination at para 25 he has stated that earlier he used to run brick kiln. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has sufficient means of source of income, however, he is negligent towards the respondents i.e. wife and children, who are unable to maintain themselves. 9. Therefore, in view of the above, the maintenance so awarded by the Family Court to the tune of Rs.11,000/- per month (Rs. 5000/- for Respondent No.1 & Rs.3000-3000/- for Respondents No.2 & 3) is just and proper and further taking into consideration the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities, the maintenance granted by the family Court cannot be stated to be wrong. Therefore, in view of the considered opinion of this Court there is no perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Family Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu