1 2025:CGHC:28590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 892 of 2019 Atmaram Kurrey @ Gitesh S/o Shri Nathuram Kurrey Aged About 35 Years R/o Sector-4, Near Shiv Mandir, Behind The L.I.G. -675, Housing Board Colony, Saddu Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---(Non- Applicant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Amrita Kurrey W/o Shri Atmaram Kurrey @ Gitesh Aged About 33 Years Through D/o Bathuram Mahilang, R/o Krishak Nagar, Jora Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shivanya Kurrey D/o Shri Atmaram Kurrey @ Gitesh Aged About 1 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal / Natural Guardian Mother Of The Respondent No. 1 Smt. Amrita Kurrey, R/o Krishak Nagar, Jora Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed this criminal revision and the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) dated 08/05/2019 may kindly be quashed and further may kindly be pleased to discharge the applicant from maintenance amount which is awarded against him in the interest of justice. This Hon'ble court be further pleased to pass any other order or relief in favour of the present applicant as it deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and Respondent No.1 were married on 26.05.2013 as per Hindu rites, and a daughter, Shivanya Kurrey (Respondent No.2), was born from the wedlock. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹30,000 per month for herself and her daughter, alleging cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant and his family, and claimed she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 23.10.2015. The applicant denied the allegations and stated that the respondent left his house voluntarily without any sufficient or 3 cogent reason and refused to return despite several efforts and even after he filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. He also stated that the respondent stayed with him for only 3–4 months post-marriage and has been residing at her parental home by choice. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence, awarded ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the settled principles of law, as it fails to consider the fact that Respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient or cogent reason despite the applicant’s repeated efforts, including filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent made false allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment, while in fact she stayed with the applicant for only 3–4 months post-marriage and has chosen to live with her parents since. The Family Court overlooked the fact that the respondent is employed as an Anganwadi worker, earning ₹60,000 annually, and is capable of maintaining herself. Moreover, the applicant is unemployed, suffering from mental and physical ailments, and burdened with the responsibility of supporting his dependent family members. In light of these facts, awarding ₹4,000 per month as maintenance is unjust, excessive, and not supported by the applicant’s financial condition. Therefore, the order deserves to be 4 set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly passed the order dated 08.05.2019, awarding ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to Respondent No.1. The Court correctly appreciated that the applicant and Respondent No.1 were legally married and that a child was born out of the wedlock, and also took into account the responsibility of the applicant towards his wife. Despite the applicant’s denial of allegations and claim that the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason, the Court found the respondent’s version credible and consistent with the material on record. The order is just, fair, and in accordance with the objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which aims to prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance to a legally wedded wife who is unable to maintain herself. The Family Court’s decision is well-reasoned and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 5 8. Considering the submission 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan