1 2025:CGHC:34926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 765 of 2022 Raju Nishad S/o Shri Santram Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Godhi, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., At Present R/o Khushi Medical And General Stores, Village Siliyari, Police Chowki Siliyari, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Arti Nishad W/o Shri Raju Nishad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Godhi, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Shivangi Nishad Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guard Mother Smt. Arti Nishad, R/o Village Godhi, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicants. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside /reduce the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 (annexure A-A), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that it is undisputed fact that the applicant and non- applicant are husband and wife. Prior to 11 to 12 years back, the husband had tortured the wife physically and mentally and thrown out the wife, resultantly the wife is resided with her daughter till date. The daughter is also not sufficient earned to take care to her mother, therefore the wife came to the house of her husband and demanded Rs.20,000/- per month as a maintenance, but the husband denied to pay the compensation. Due to continuous neglect and refusal to provide maintenance, the non-applicant facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file this present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. In her application she stated that the husband has worked in the Khushi Medical Store, Devendra Nagar, Siliyari, Raipur and at that time, the husband had obtained Rs.5,000/- only salary and also the husband is obtaining TA and DA of Rs.2,000 to 7,000/- per month as a Salary. Therefore the wife demanded Rs.20,000/- per month from the husband as a maintenance. The husband has not appeared before the learned Family Court, therefore he has not filed his written statement before the family Court. 3 5. The learned Family Court concerned after considering the pleadings and upon appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby it was directed the applicant to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 5000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 however, there is no discussion made with respect to the Non-applicant No.2. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court passed the order without hearing the husband/applicant and passed the impugned order dated 24.06.2022. He further submits that the allegation which are framed against the husband are false and fabricated. The applicant has been only 5000/- received from the service in medical store and there is no any other income from the other side by the applicant. The applicant is only employee of medical store and there is no any source of income, therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal. The wife herself left the house of her husband and resided with her daughter in her own will and wishes. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount from the applicant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Upon appreciation of the facts, evidence and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court has partly allowed 4 the application whereby directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the Non-applicant No.1/wife. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to the non- applicant No.1, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal