1 2025:CGHC:38872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 798 of 2023 Dashru Ram Satnami S/o Bhola Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Vanagaon, Kandel, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sevti Bai W/o Dashru Ram Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Shitalpara, Hatkeshwar, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Umesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 23.06.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.103/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount of ₹10,000 per month from the applicant. She claimed that her marriage with the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:18 +0530 2 applicant was solemnized in 1993 at Village Shitlapara, Hatkeshwar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), according to social customs and rituals. The relationship between the parties remained cordial for the first 5–6 years of marriage. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly began to mistreat her, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home and reside at her parental house. She further stated that she has no independent source of income to support herself. It was also claimed that the applicant earns ₹400 per day as wages and owns 1.25 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns approximately ₹1,00,000 annually. Accordingly, she sought ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. 3. The applicant filed a reply denying all allegations, specifically denying the marriage. He also claimed that he has no source of income and is unable to pay any maintenance, and requested that the application be dismissed. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 23.06.2023, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹1,500 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the marriage was not proved and was specifically denied by the applicant. Despite this, passing an order for maintenance is illegal. The maintenance amount awarded in favour of the respondent is not in accordance with the law, considering the financial condition of the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is around 65 years old, is unable to earn, and depends solely on 3 government welfare schemes for his livelihood. The impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, hence the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that in the present case, no fact has been presented on behalf of the applicant to suggest that he is physically unfit or suffering from any mental or physical ailment that renders him incapable of working. As per the provisions envisaged under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with the intent of the legislature, every person who is physically and mentally fit is obligated to maintain his dependents, even if he is unemployed. Furthermore, from the evidence submitted by the applicant, it is evident that he is a healthy and able-bodied person engaged in agricultural work. Although his actual income has not been conclusively proven, it has been established in this case that the applicant earns an income through farming or daily wage labor and is a person with sufficient means. Considering the financial and family background of both parties, their standard of living, the condition of the applicant, other relevant surrounding circumstances, and the age of the applicant, it appears just and reasonable to fix a maintenance amount of ₹1,500 per month for the respondent, Smt. Sevti Bai. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no 4 interference by this Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 9. Accordingly, the present 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 Preeti