1 2025:CGHC:31302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 670 of 2020 1 - Kavita Kaivartya W/o Tikaram Kaivartya Aged About 22 Years R/o Amethi Police Station Pallari , District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o House Of Father Of Applicant No. 1, Namely Lacchkumar Kaivartya, Village Chapora , Police Station And Tehsil Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yogheshwar S/o Tikaram Kaivartya Aged About 1 Years Through His Natural Guardian Mother , Kavita Kaivartya, W/o Tikaram Kaivartya, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Amethi Police Station Pallari , District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Present R/o House Of Father Of Applicant No. 1, Namely Lacchkumar Kaivartya, Village Chapora , Police Station And Tehsil Bilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tikaram Kaivartya S/o Sukhiram Kaivartya Aged About 28 Years R/o Amethi, Police Station Pallari, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel the applicants. Also heard Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision, set aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2020 passed by the Family Court, Balodabazar in MJC No.356/19 so far as it relates to denial of monthly maintenance to applicant No.1 and grant maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month and be further pleased to suitably enhance monthly maintenance awarded to applicant no.2 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present revision arises from the impugned order passed by the learned Court below in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the applicants wife (Applicant No.1) and minor son (Applicant No.2) of the non-applicant had sought monthly maintenance. The marriage between applicant No.1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 28.04.2015 as per Hindu rites, and out of the wedlock, applicant No.2 was born. Soon after marriage, the non-applicant and his family members allegedly subjected the applicant wife to continuous mental and physical harassment over dowry demands. Despite a village-level meeting 3 held on 26.02.2017 to resolve the issues, the non-applicant refused to cohabit. Consequently, an FIR bearing No. 183/2017 was lodged by Applicant No.1 under Section 498A IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam, 2005. The applicants, having been forced to live separately at the parental home of Applicant No.1, claimed the non-applicant being a government employee earning approximately ₹16,000/month neglected their maintenance. The non-applicant denied all allegations and alleged that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home due to her insistence on family partition. After considering the pleadings and evidence, the trial court partly allowed the application by granting ₹3,000/- per month to the minor son but erroneously denied maintenance to the wife, giving rise to this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order denying maintenance to applicant No.1 (wife) is legally unsustainable and perverse, as the learned trial court failed to appreciate that she was compelled to live separately due to consistent harassment and dowry demands by the non-applicant and his family, which is supported by her testimony and an FIR dated 24.05.2017. The non-applicant failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause, as required under law, whereas the applicant categorically established the circumstances of cruelty and demand for ₹50,000/- leading to her ouster. The court erroneously denied maintenance on the ground that the wife failed to prove the non- applicant’s income, ignoring that under Section 106 of the Indian 4 Evidence Act, the burden lies on the husband to disclose his income, being within his special knowledge. Moreover, although the non-applicant is employed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, the maintenance awarded to the minor son is disproportionately low and insufficient to meet basic needs. The trial court also failed to consider the husband’s statutory obligation to maintain his wife and child, as well as his failure to establish any substantial financial liabilities. Hence, the order passed by the trial court is unsustainable in law and facts, and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar-Bhathapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhathapara, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion in partly allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by awarding ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the minor son, recognizing the non-applicant’s legal and moral obligation to support his child. Based on the evidence presented, including the admitted fact that the non-applicant is a government employee with a stable income, the court appropriately acknowledged the needs of the minor dependent. Furthermore, the denial of maintenance to the 5 wife was correctly based on the ground that she failed to establish the non-applicant’s income with sufficient proof, and did not demonstrate that she was unable to maintain herself. The court also considered the non-applicant’s version that the wife had left the matrimonial home on her own volition, which was supported by his complaint filed with the police. Thus, the decision rendered by the learned Family Court is reasoned, balanced, and in accordance with law. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan