1 2025:CGHC:38441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 953 of 2022 Dev Pratap Singh S/o Sunder Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No 24, Kapoor Singh Dafai, Chirmiri, P.S. And Tahsil Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Reenu Singh W/o Dev Pratap Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2. Kunal Singh S/o Dev Pratap Singh, Aged About 05 Months (Minor) Representative Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Reenu Singh At Present R/o Manendragarh, Tahsil- Manendragarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Choubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. 00 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Choubey, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/2021 from the Court of Family Court, Manendragarh, Distt.- Koriya, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.05 13:50:09 +0530 2 (C.G.) 2. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and set a side/quash the impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2022, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 02/2021 from the Court of Family Court, Manendragarh, Distt.- Koriya, (C.G.) 3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the order dated-19.05.2022, till the pendency of the instant revision. 4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 01 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month. It was stated that the respondent No. 01 and the applicant were married on 24.04.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of the said wedlock, respondent no. 2 (minor child) was born. The respondent No. 1 further alleged that after the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and her mother-in-law. They constantly demanded unlawful property and valuable articles from her. On 24.11.2020, she was allegedly tortured and beaten by her husband and mother-in-law and was subsequently ousted from the matrimonial home. She also claimed that her minor child was snatched from her, and she was asked to bring a motorcycle and Rs. 50,000/-. On the next morning, she lodged a police complaint, upon which her husband and mother-in-law returned the child. Due to the alleged harassment and physical abuse, she returned to her parental home. She claimed that she is unable to maintain herself and is dependent on her parents. Therefore, she claimed Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant, who she alleged is working as a 3 driver and earns ₹20,000/- per month. 4. The applicant filed a written statement and denied all the allegations made by the respondent No. 1 in her application. He stated that the respondent No. 1 did not want to reside with his mother and used to frequently visit her parental home. On the date of the alleged incident, she again insisted on going to her parental house. When the applicant tried to stop her, she abused him and his mother and left the matrimonial home on her own will. Thereafter, she lodged a false complaint. He denied any demand for dowry or acts of cruelty. He further stated that the respondent No. 1 willfully deserted the matrimonial home, and hence, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. He also submitted that he was earlier employed as a driver in Adani Company but lost his job during the lockdown and is now working on a daily wage basis. He does not have any permanent employment. Despite everything, the applicant still wishes to resume conjugal life with the respondents, but due to her stubborn nature, she is living separately without any justified reason. 5. Learned Family Court, after framing of issues and recording the evidence, including that of Smt. Reenu Singh, examined the material available on record and, vide order dated 19.05.2022, allowed the application and granted Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 by the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the material available on record. It is based on mere surmises and conjecture and is, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that there was willful desertion on the part of the respondent No. 1, despite the applicant’s continuous 4 willingness to maintain and reside with her. He further submits that learned Family Court ignored the fact that no complaint regarding harassment or demand for dowry was ever filed by the respondent No. 1 before any authority, and also failed to appreciate that she had willfully deserted the applicant without any valid reason. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No. 1, without any sufficient cause, has been residing separately from the applicant. She had earlier left their son with the applicant and lived separately, and only shortly before filing the maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she took the child from the custody of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court, in an arbitrary manner and contrary to the material available on record, held the applicant liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and erroneously concluded that the respondent No. 1 had sufficient cause to live separately. The Court overlooked the fact that it was the respondent No. 1 who left the matrimonial home and refused to live with the applicant without any sufficient cause. He submits that learned Family Court ignored the fact that the applicant has an aged mother, as well as a brother and sister, all of whom are dependent on him. Despite no fault on the part of the applicant, he has now been unjustly burdened with the responsibility of paying maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant has no fixed source of income. He was removed from his job during the lockdown period and is currently engaged on a daily wage basis depending on availability. This fact was also admitted by the respondent No. 1, who acknowledged that the applicant is not in any permanent employment. Therefore, by the impugned judgment, the applicant has been unfairly overburdened financially by the maintenance award in favor of the respondents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment 5 of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek