1 2025:CGHC:39952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 718 of 2025 Aashish Rajak S/o Gorelal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Damdam Police Station Pasan District- Gaurela- Pendra Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Aarti Rajak W/o Aashish Rajak Aged About 23 Years Present R/ o Bandhpara (Sardi) Police Station Charcha Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Aastha D/o Aashish Rajak Aged About 3 Years Since Minor Through Mother Aarti Rajak, W/o Aashish Rajak, Aged About 23 (Details Incompletely Mentioned In The Impugned Order) Present R/o Bandhpara (Sardi) Police Station Charcha Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati alongwith Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /0 8 /202 5 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.148/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that after the birth of applicant No. 2, the respondent and his parents started harassing and tormenting applicant No. 1, taunting her for giving birth to a girl child and not bringing sufficient dowry. The respondent began demanding a motorcycle and money, and when applicant No. 1 expressed her inability to fulfill these demands, the harassment escalated. Despite tolerating the abuse, hoping for a change in the respondent's behavior, applicant No. 1 was eventually forced to leave her matrimonial home with her daughter in August 2023. On September 19, 2023, when applicant No. 1 visited her husband's home, she was physically assaulted by the respondent, his parents, and his grandparents, who also threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to the police. Applicant No. 1 managed to escape and filed a complaint with the police, which was forwarded to the Women’s Cell. However, no action has been taken against the respondent. The applicant further states that the respondent has abandoned her and is living with another woman named Manisha. Given her poor health, applicant No. 1 is unable to support herself and her daughter. The respondent, who runs a grocery store, flour mill, rice mill, and oil 3 mill, earns approximately Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month, in addition to rental income and earnings from dairy business. The applicants are seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/-, with Rs. 15,000/- for applicant No. 1 and Rs. 10,000 for applicant No. 2. thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent No.1. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in rejecting the disability certificate, which proves the applicant's 60% physical disability and restricted ability to work. Furthermore, the respondent abandoned the applicant without valid reason and caused mental torture to him and his family, she is living separately without just cause, and the applicant made bona fide efforts to resume cohabitation, including sending a legal notice and also her conduct, including leaving the matrimonial home and neglecting marital obligations. He further submits that the Family Court did not account for the applicant's limited financial capacity, as his earnings barely meet his basic needs. The Family Court should have considered the respondent's consistent harassment and refusal to live with the applicant without legitimate cause. He also submits that the maintenance awarded is excessive and based on mis-appreciation of facts, 4 particularly in the absence of reliable proof of the applicant's income or capacity to pay. Hence, the impugned order is perverse and arbitrary, as the Court failed to appreciate the evidence and allowed maintenance without adequate proof of neglect or refusal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance, observing the evidence, witness statements and documents the family Court concluded that it has been admitted fact that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife, and respondent No. 2 is their daughter. Furthermore, the respondent No.1 is subjected to abuse and was forcefully thrown out of her marital home on 19.09.2023. Due to constant harassment and the respondent taking a second wife, the respondent No.1 is living separately from the applicant, which is a cogent reason, 5 moreover, she is unable to maintain herself, therefore, the Family Court concluded that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan