1 2025:CGHC:48795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 580 of 2021 Karan Ravi S/o Shri Ramsai Ravi, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Satpata, Keshavnagar, Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattsigarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Asha Ravi W/o Karan Ravi, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sarbhonka, P.S. Pondi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raja S/o Shri Karan Ravi, Aged About 08 Months, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Ravi, R/o Village Sarbhonka, P.S. Pondi, , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned family Court Manendragarh, District RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal case no. 13/2019 or maintenance amount may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is stated that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 19.04.2017 at village Patthajam as per Hindu rites and customs, and from the wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. Respondent No. 1 alleged that soon after marriage, she was harassed and tortured by the applicant and his family members for dowry, and after three months of marriage, the applicant, under the influence of liquor, assaulted her. On 30.03.2018, the applicant allegedly sent respondent No. 1 to her parental home, where she has been residing since then along with the child. It is further alleged that the applicant neither made any effort to bring her back nor provided any financial support, compelling respondent No. 1 to lodge an FIR under Section 498-A IPC on 02.04.2018, which was later compromised before the Family Counseling Centre, Surajpur. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed a maintenance case on 21.06.2018, which was also settled on 18.12.2018, with the assurance that there would be no demand for dowry or harassment. However, on 05.01.2019, a social meeting was held at village Sarbhounka, where the dispute could not be resolved, and since then, respondent No. 1 has been living separately. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 has no source of 3 income, while the applicant owns agricultural land and runs a shop earning about Rs.2,00,000/- annually. The applicant filed a reply denying all allegations and contending that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any valid reason, making the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. not maintainable. Despite this, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, without proper consideration of facts, passed an order directing the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and record. He submits that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left her matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and, even during her stay, used to live there only for a few days before repeatedly returning to her parental home, clearly showing her unwillingness to reside with the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant never consumed liquor, never demanded dowry, and never committed any act of cruelty, as dowry practices do not prevail in his community. Despite this, respondent No. 1 lodged a false complaint alleging harassment and dowry demand, whereas, during counseling proceedings on 01.05.2018, she herself admitted that she did not wish to live with the applicant. The applicant is a poor person suffering from liver disease, undergoing regular treatment at Suyash Hospital, Raipur, and is unable to do physical labor. The learned Family Court wrongly presumed his earning capacity based on a daily wage rate of 4 Rs.345/- per day without considering that work is neither available every day nor regularly paid. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 is well-educated, holding a postgraduate degree, and has deliberately chosen to live separately for her own interests, including seeking government employment, while the applicant, who has only studied up to higher secondary, has consistently made efforts to bring her back and live together, which she refused. Hence, the maintenance order of Rs.3,500/- per month is unjustified and 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 impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record, rightly held that respondent No. 1, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent No. 2, being the minor child born out of the wedlock, are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that respondent No. 1 was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with dowry demands and was compelled to reside separately at her parental home along with the child. It was also observed that despite having sufficient means, the applicant failed to provide financial support to the respondents. The contention of the applicant that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any valid reason was not substantiated by credible evidence. Further, considering the applicant’s earning capacity, the needs of the respondents, and the prevailing cost of 5 living, the learned Family Court correctly exercised its discretion and passed a just and reasonable order directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondents. 6. Considering the submission 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal 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 Rahul Dewangan