1 2025:CGHC:24960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 358 of 2017 Nageshwar S/o Rangnath, Aged About 26 Years Caste Chamar, R/o Village Lalpur, Post Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Sangeeta D/o Ramlal, Aged About 23 Years W/o Nageshwar Caste Chamar, R/o Village Aamapara, Thana And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Kaiwart, holding brief of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/202 5 1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Ahuja, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Priya Kaiwart, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc, Criminal Case. No.56/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month, alleging that she got married with the applicant on July 6, 2013, according to customary rites, and initially lived with him as his wife. However, about a year after the marriage, the applicant’s behavior changed, and he began quarreling with her over minor issues and subjecting her to physical and mental abuse. In March 2015, he allegedly assaulted her and demanded dowry, forcing her to return to her parental home in Ama Para. Despite her family's repeated requests, the applicant did not take her back. On January 8, 2016, he arrived and took her back after a compromise was reached in front of a Panchayat. Nevertheless, his behavior didn't change, and he continued to harass her. On June 5, 2016, and again on July 8, 2016, he allegedly assaulted her and threw her out of the house, threatening to kill her if she reported him to the authorities and also threatening to remarry. Since then, she has been living at her parental home, and the respondent has not provided her with any maintenance. The applciant works as a tractor driver, earning 3 Rs. 6,000/- per month, and also has agricultural land in Lalpur, generating an additional income of Rs. 5,000. The applicant claims she is unable to support herself and incurs expenses for medication and treatment. Therefore, she is requesting a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 3,000. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that respondent herself had left the home at her own will and is not willing to share the responsibility of marital life. He further submits that applicant is ia poor person and has no source of income or land, further he has borrowed money from his parents to meet his regular expenses. He also submits that the respondent on the ground of harassment done by the applicant has filed the case against the applicant on false grounds, further no independent evidence was recorded to support the case of respondent, neither any document pertaining to income is filed, nor any document pertaining to land was filed, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is bad in law and 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 4 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance observing that the respondent, Sangita, stated that she is physically weak and has no source of income, relying on her parental family for expenses. The applicant, a tractor driver, earns Rs. 6,000 per month and has ancestral land generating an additional Rs. 5,000 monthly. Sangita's witness corroborated these facts. Given her circumstances, it is clear she can not support herself. Although there is no documentary evidence of the respondent's income, his presence during hearings and failure to appear after failed conciliation proceedings suggest he is capable. Under Section 125 CrPC, the applicant has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife, which he is neglecting. Considering current living costs, a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- seems reasonable, especially since Sangita resides with her parents and does not incur additional housing expenses. Therefore, the Family Court determines that the applicant should pay Rs. 2,500/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent. 5 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan