1 2025:CGHC:27400 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 811 of 2018 Deepak Dhritlahare S/o Shankar Dhritlahare Aged About 29 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Gaboud, P. S. Palari, Tahsil Palari, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kantibala Dhritlahare W/o Deepak Dhritlahare Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Bhothali, P. S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisarh. 2 - Ku. Bhavika Dhritlahare D/o Deepak Dhritlahare Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Kantibala Dhritlahare, (Non-Applicant No. 1) R/o Village Bhothali, P. S. And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance from the applicant. It was stated that non-applicant no.1 was legally married to the applicant, and out of the wedlock, non-applicant no.2 (their child) was born, who currently resides with non-applicant no.1. The non-applicants alleged that after marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected them to physical assault and cruelty. It was further alleged that on 10.02.2016, the applicant married another woman named Brij Patela. They claimed that the applicant is employed in a private job earning ₹20,000/- per month and also receives ₹2 lakhs annually from agricultural income, and accordingly sought ₹8,000/- per month as maintenance. In his reply, the applicant denied all allegations and contended that non-applicant no.1 is working as a teacher in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, earning ₹5,000/- per month, and had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after falsely lodging a dowry complaint at Police Station Palari. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. However, the learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹3,000/- per month to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1,500/- per month to non-applicant no.2 from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant 3 has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 is bad in law and facts and is not sustainable. The learned Family Court erred in relying solely on the testimonies of the non-applicants’ family members, who do not reside with them, and failed to consider that no independent witness was examined to support the allegations of cruelty or dowry demand. There is also no credible evidence or documentary proof of the alleged second marriage with Brij Patela, which the applicant has categorically denied. Moreover, the non-applicants failed to produce any revenue records to substantiate the claim of ₹2 lakhs annual agricultural income. The Court ignored the applicant’s reply and the evidence he led, including his statement that the non- applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home after making false allegations. The applicant has consistently stated that he is a labourer and the non-applicants did not examine his employer to prove otherwise. The non-applicant no.1 herself is employed as a teacher earning ₹5,000/- per month, which the Family Court failed to consider. The evidence also suggests that she intended to stay away from the applicant for personal comfort and monetary reasons. Hence, the order passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly exercised its judicial discretion in allowing the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. after duly appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record by both parties. The Court correctly noted that non-applicant no.1 was legally wedded to the applicant and was residing separately along with her minor child, non-applicant no.2, due to allegations of cruelty and assault by the applicant and his family members. The Court also took into account the serious allegation of a second marriage, the financial status of the applicant, and the fact that the wife had the responsibility of raising the child. Although the applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the Court found the overall evidence weighed in favour of the non-applicants. In view of the applicant’s earning capacity and the needs of the wife and child, the Family Court justly directed the applicant to pay ₹3,000/- per month to the wife and ₹1,500/- to the child, which is reasonable and proportionate. The order passed is neither arbitrary nor perverse and fully aligns with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring basic sustenance to the wife and child. 7. Considering the submission 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan