1 2025:CGHC:36508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 779 of 2023 Dauwa Ram Yadu S/o Shri Chintaram Yadu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Tarenga, Police Station Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sukhbati W/o Shri Dauwa Ram Yadu Aged About 45 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Urla, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Sangeeta Yadu, D/o Shri Dauwa Ram Yadu, Aged About 21 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Urla, Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. V.S. Mishra on behalf of Mr. Prakash Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. V.S. Mishra on behalf of Mr. Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MCC AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Case No. 115/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 filed and application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. who was married to the applicant about 30 years ago. The couple had three children, one of whom passed away at the age of 19. The applicant had two previous marriages before marrying the respondent No.1. The applicant started mistreating the respondent No.1 a few years after the marriage and has been living with another woman, Dulari Bai. The applicant has been beating and abusing the respondent No.1 and their children and has not provided any maintenance for the past 7 years. The applicant is alleged to have a history of bad behavior, is a drunkard, and has a quarrelsome nature. On January 7, 2019, the applicant and his family members allegedly beat and abused the respondent No.1 and a report was lodged with the police. The respondent No.1 and her children are currently living separately from the applicant, and the respondent’s daughter (respondent No. 2) had to discontinue her education due to lack of funds. The respondent is illiterate and has no source of income, while the applicant has agricultural land and other assets. 3 4. The respondent requested maintenance from the applicant, seeking Rs. 20,000 per month for each of them, totaling Rs. 40,000 per month. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties, partly allowed the revision filed by the respondents and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- to respondent No.2. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is flawed both in fact and law, and is based on conjecture and surmises. The learned Family Court erred in proceeding ex-parte against the applicant without providing proper opportunity for hearing. Despite the applicant's appearance in the case and filing of a reply, they were not adequately informed about the hearings, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The applicant had provided a residential house and established a shop for the respondent, which suggests they have a sufficient source of income, contradicting the Court's finding that they had no means to maintain themselves. The ex-parte proceedings denied the applicant the chance to cross-examine the non-applicants and their witnesses, which was crucial in proving the non-applicants' financial situation. The Court held without basis that the respondents have no source of income and the applicant is liable to maintain them. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondents have sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant as the applicant used to abuse the respondents No.1 physically and verbally. Further, the respondent No.1 is an illiterate women with no source of income and respondent No.2 is unmarried daughter of the applicant and such, they are entitled for grant of maintenance and the maintenance amount granted to them cannot be said to be on a higher side. 8. Considering the submissions 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil