1 2025:CGHC:41292 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 871 of 2024 Raju Nishad S/o Vipat Ram Nishad Aged About 24 Years R/o Mahamaya Para Village- Mutpuri, Post Mau, Thana Chandanu Chowki Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Dileshwari Nishad W/o Raju Nishad Aged About 22 Years D/o Ramcharan Nishad, R/o Near Nahar Road, Bhatagaon Mathpuraina, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Geetanjali Nishad D/o Raju Nishad Aged About 8 Months, (Respondent No. 2 Is Minor, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Res. No. 1 Smt. Dileshwari Nishad), R/o Near Nahar Road, Bhatagaon Mathpuraina, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate.. For Respondents : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.14 19:48:47 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 may kindly be set-aside which relates to non-applicant No. 1 and 2, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per the respondents’ application before the Family Court, the marriage of respondent No. 1 and the applicant took place on 14/05/2019 as per Hindu rituals at Mathpuraina, Raipur. From the wedlock between them, respondent No. 2 was born on 19/12/2020 and is presently residing with respondent No. 1. As per respondent No. 1, her parents had given sufficient articles as dowry in her marriage, but the applicant used to quarrel, stating that her parents had not given him a motorcycle. After the birth of the girl child, he cursed her and denied that respondent No. 2 was his daughter. The respondent No. 1 also alleged that the applicant used to threaten her by saying that he would malign her character, never gave her any household expenses, and always asked her to bring money from her parents, thereby subjecting her to cruelty. The respondent further alleged that the applicant had suppressed the fact of his first marriage and married her without disclosing it. She came to know of his earlier marriage two months after her own marriage. Thereafter, the applicant started beating her, due to which she lodged a report against him at the Mahila Thana, Raipur, on 18/06/2021. Since then, she has been residing with her parents. The respondent pleaded that she has no source of income, whereas the applicant is working as a carpenter, earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, and also owns agricultural land. Therefore, he is financially capable of supporting her to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Accordingly, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month along with an 3 application for interim maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant appeared and filed a written statement denying the allegations and praying for dismissal of the application. While admitting the marriage, the applicant stated that he wished to live with the respondents, but they left him without any cause. He further submitted that he works as a farm labourer and has no regular source of income. The respondent No. 1 used to suggest selling all property/fields and settling in the city, and also taunted him for being less educated, claiming that she earned Rs. 15,000/- per month. She allegedly insisted that the applicant should move with her to the city, leaving his parents behind. Even during counseling at the Mahila Thana, she refused to live with him. Whatever little income the applicant earns is spent on his aged parents and daily household needs; therefore, he is not in a position to provide any financial aid to the respondents. Moreover, as she is residing separately without sufficient cause, she is not entitled to maintenance. 5. After filing of the reply, the learned Family Court framed two issues for consideration: (i) Whether the respondent No. 1 is residing separately with sufficient cause? (ii) What amount of financial support the respondents are entitled to? 6. The learned Family Court, solely relying on the pleadings of the respondents and the testimony of interested witnesses, without appreciating the fact that the applicant was willing to reside with her, held that she was residing separately with sufficient cause. 7. Learned Family Court recorded findings contrary to the material available on record and failed to note that there was no oral or documentary 4 evidence regarding the applicant’s income. Despite this, the Court fixed maintenance at Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in passing the impugned order by allowing the application of the respondents without any just and proper reasons. He submits that learned Family Court failed to see that the evidence in the case was not concrete enough to establish any cruelty towards the respondents. No evidence was brought on record to show that the applicant is financially sound to support the respondents to the extent determined by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the Family Court ought to have considered that she is residing separately without sufficient cause and, hence, is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband. He further submits that learned Family Court also committed an error of law in granting a higher amount in favour of the respondents, despite the fact that the applicant is himself not in a position to maintain himself and his aged parents properly, therefore, the findings of the learned Family Court are perverse and contrary to the material available on record and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions and prayers made by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents 5 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek