1 2025:CGHC:32628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 620 of 2021 Binamin S/o Satar, Aged About 28 Years Occupation Business And Cultivator, R/o Village Udari, Police Station And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Jyoti W/o Binamin, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Singitana, P.S. And Tahsil Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Rabina D/o Binamin, Aged About 6 Months, Minor Represented Through Natural Guardian And Mother Smt. Jyoti W/o Binamin, R/o Village Singitana, P.S. and Tahsil Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 23.08.2021, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating that non-applicant No. 1 was married to the applicant on 12.07.2019 and a child (non-applicant No. 2) was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after the birth of the child, the applicant sent them to the parental home of non-applicant No. 1 and thereafter failed to bring them back or provide maintenance. In response, the applicant denied the allegations, claiming that the marriage actually took place on 12.07.2017 and that non-applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily, without any justifiable reason. He asserted that he was always willing to maintain them and take them back, but non-applicant No. 1 refused to return. He further submitted that he was not engaged in any business and possessed only a small piece of agricultural land, from which he could barely support his family. After hearing both sides and examining the evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 23.08.2021, found merit in the claim of the non-applicants and directed the applicant to pay ₹4,000/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside as it fails to consider key facts and evidence. The applicant never ousted non- applicant No. 1 from the matrimonial home; rather, she left on her 3 own without any reasonable cause and has been residing at her parental home for over 11 years. Despite several efforts made by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to return. The applicant, being a labor-class person with limited means and living below the poverty line, is financially incapable of paying the maintenance amount awarded, which is excessive and disproportionate to his actual income. He owns only a small piece of agricultural land and does not run any business. Moreover, the Family Court ignored admissions by the non-applicant and her witnesses regarding her prolonged stay at her parental house and failed to properly assess the applicant’s financial condition. Since the claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not an absolute right and must be based on genuine need, the order granting maintenance is unjustified and deserves to be set aside. 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 order passed by the learned Family Court on 23.08.2021 is just, proper, and in accordance with law. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence, and conduct of the parties, the Court rightly concluded that the applicant had failed to maintain his legally wedded wife and minor child, despite having a legal and moral obligation to do so. The applicant’s claim that the non-applicant No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any reason was not supported by cogent evidence, nor was there any proof of genuine efforts made by him to 4 bring her back. The Court also took into consideration the financial needs of the non-applicants, especially the minor child, and awarded ₹4,000/- per month, which is reasonable and justified in the prevailing circumstances. 7. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan