1 2025:CGHC:25104 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1153 of 2017 Ashok S/o Darbari Aged About 25 Years R/o Nawapara, Barhol, Manja, Post Sarbhoka, Police Station And Tahsil Ramnujnagar, Shrinagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Santoshi W/o Shri Ashok Aged About 23 Years D/o Pawan Sai, R/o Dhouratikra, Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 27.11.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.32/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, in which it was mentioned that the marriage of applicant with the respondent was solemnized on 10.05.2014 according to caste custom and after the marriage the applicant and respondent resided happily, thereafter the applicant demanded dowry and physically assaulted the respondent with hand and fist and on 12.03.2017 and also ousted her from the home. The applicant filed its reply and it was pleaded in the reply that he never demanded any dowry from the respondent and wants to reside alongwith the respondent After scrutinizing the evidence laid by the respondent, learned Family Court passed the order of the maintenance of Rs. 2500/- in favour of the respondent. Hence this criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that after marriage, respondent went to her parental house, thereafter, the applicant and his brother-in-law brought her back, after sometime she does the same act and father of the respondent said the applicant that they will not sent her back. He further submits that learned Family Court erred in passing the order of maintenance in favour of respondent as the applicant is dependent on his father. Moreover, he is not having any agricultural land in his name as alleged, so in absence of any evidence with regard to the income of applicant, the order has been passed, which is liable to be set-aside. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 respondent and directed the pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the applicant has not provided any evidence regarding the income of respondent, nor did he cross-examine the respondent or her father in the matter. It is clear from the statements of the respondent and her father that she is unable to maintain herself. Considering the status of both parties, their past marital life, changed circumstances, future needs, and standard of living and also it is the constitutional duty of a man to maintain his wife, children, and parents according to his social status. He further observed that the applicant is physically capable, engages in farming and other activities, and has a photocopy machine at his home, indicating that he is relatively affluent financially and physically. It is evident that applicant is not making any effort to maintain the respondent and therefore, he is liable to provide maintenance to her. Regarding the maintenance amount, considering the daily needs and prices of essential commodities for an average adult, Rs. 3,000/- can be reasonably estimated as the minimum requirement. However, since the respondent resides with her father and does not incur any housing expenses, the 4 Family Court come to the conclusion and granted Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance to respondent. 7. 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. 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 trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil