1 2025:CGHC:27749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 755 of 2025 1 - Mohd. Monish Iraki S/o Mohd. Saeed Ahmed Aged About 26 Years R/o Rani Laxmi Bai, Charcha Colliery, P.S. Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, Dist. Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Neshat Parveen W/o Monish Iraki D/o Mohd. Wali Mohammed Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Masjidpara, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 - Johan S/o Monish Iraki Aged About 1 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Masjidpara, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) (Through Natural Guradian Mother Neshat Parveen) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Adil Minhaz, Advocate For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: I. “That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to Misc. Criminal Case No.129 of 2024 from the Family Court, Manendragarh(C.G.). VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2 II. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set- aside/quash order dated 15.04.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 129 of 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh (C.G.). III. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the applicant.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 02.04.2021, as per the customs of their community. According to the non-applicant No.1, after their marriage her father-in-law and mother-in-law started subjecting her to cruelty in connection of demand of dowry, the applicant began to harass and assault her, ultimately ousting her from the matrimonial home, following which she started residing with her parents at Village Charcha. The applicant allegedly neglected to provide any maintenance, compelling the non-applicant No.1 to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2024, seeking maintenance of 30,000/- per month. ₹ The Family Court initially referred the matter for counseling and subsequently awarded 7,000/- per month as maintenance to the ₹ non-applicants. The applicant, while producing oral and documentary evidence, contended that the non-applicant No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient cause, despite his willingness to maintain her and the children. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that that the learned Family Court erred in passing the ex-parte order of maintenance of 7,000/- per month in favour of the non-applicants, ₹ 3 as the non-applicant No.1 failed to prove any justifiable reason for residing separately, and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence on record because neither the non-applicant nor her witnesses produced any legal or reliable evidence to establish that the applicant refused to keep her; rather, it is she who, without any sufficient cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. The learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and passed the impugned order without considering the documentary evidence and without proof of the applicant’s income, who is a 26- year-old person. Thus, the order is perverse, against the settled principles of law as laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 are legally wedded husband and wife, after their marriage her father-in-law and mother-in-law started subjecting her to cruelty in connection of demand of dowry, the applicant began to harass and assault her, ultimately ousting her from the matrimonial home, following which she started residing with her parents at Village Charcha. The applicant failed in his duty to provide maintenance, leaving the non-applicants without financial support, thereby justifying the filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, after affording opportunity for counseling and considering the needs of the non-applicants as well as the capacity of the applicant, has passed a reasoned and just 4 order in accordance with law to secure the rights of the wife and minor child to maintenance. Further considering the fact that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order awarding maintenance of 7,000/- per month 4,000/- to non-applicant No. 1 ₹ ₹ (wife) and 3,000/- to non-applicant No. 2 (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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali