1 2025:CGHC:28154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 951 of 2018 Rajkumar S/o Govardhan Chauhan Aged About 30 Years R/o- Village- Bhadra, Post- Anandgaon, Tahsil- Berla, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Rahi Bai W/o Rajkumar Aged About 27 Years R/o- Village- Bhadra, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o- Village- Katalbod, Thana- Bemetara, Tahsil and District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 2. Tileshwari D/o Rajkumar Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Rahi Bai W/o Rajkumar Chauhan, R/o- Village- Bhadra, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o- Village- Katalbod, Thana- Bemetara, Tahsil and District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., 3. Tilak S/o Rajkumar Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Rahi Bai W/o Rajkumar Chauhan, R/o- Village- Bhadra, Tahsil- Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o- Village- Katalbod, Thana- Bemetara, Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.28 17:08:54 +0530 2 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.11.2016 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, (Link Court), Bemetara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.29/2015, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent No.1/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1/wife, Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.3/son. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 is the husband and wife and it is admitted position in the case the marriage of the parties was taken place on 09 years back as per the custom prevailing in the community. As per the averment made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the marriage of the applicant was taken place with the respondent No.1 and after birth of his children, applicant started harassing her and beaten the respondent No.1 and the applicant ousted them from the house so she started to resides with her parents at village Katulbod. Further, averment is that due to harassment of the applicant she started to reside with her parents and after some time when the applicant is not taking care and not provided any amount for the purpose of maintenance of the respondents then she filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 26.12.2014 with claiming a maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The case is fixed for counseling before the Family Court, thereafter, learned Family Court has awarded total sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month amount of maintenance in favor of the respondents. The applicant produced oral as well as documentary 3 evidence in support of his case and he also produced the evidence to establish the fact that she is residing separately without any cause though the applicant is ready to keep his wife and children with him, hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the learned Family Court had erred in passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month in favor of the respondents though she has failed to proved the reasons for residing separately, therefore, she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance. The order of maintenance is passed by the learned Family Court is against the settled principal of law and it is also against the evidence available on record because the respondent No.1 and her witnesses have not produced the legal evidence before the trial Court to establish the fact that the applicant has refused to kept her though she herself not ready to resides with the applicant and left the house of applicant and started to resides at her Mayka with her own will. Further, the learned trial Court did not proper appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and without seeing the documents passed the order impugned without any proof of income of the applicant who is 30 years old ill person. Further, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent No.1/wife states that she lives at her parents' house and she has no source of income and the applicant/husband is capable of providing maintenance to her, in refutation of which no evidence has been produced by the applicant, which proves that the applicant is neglecting 4 in providing maintenance to the applicants, who are his wife and child respectively. Consequently, on the basis of the above findings, the application submitted by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is partly accepted and keeping in view the social and economic status of both the parties, it is ordered that the applicant shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1- Rahi Bai and Rs. 1,000 each to respondent No. 2 and 03 - Tileshwari and Tilak respectively, totaling Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance from order dated 26.11.2016. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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