1 2025:CGHC:36873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 991 of 2023 Mahendra Raj Neware S/o Shri Ishu Lal Neware Aged About 33 Years R/o Behind Meera Fancy Stores, Thakkar Bapa Ward No.9, Premnagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Varsha Neware W/o Mahendra Raj Newae Aged About 29 Years R/o Behind Meera Fancy Stores, Thakkar Bapa Ward No. 9, Premnagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.), Presently Residing At Village Madhar Station, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Twinkle Neware D/o Mahendra Raj Neware Aged About 01 Years, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Varsha Neware, R/o Behind Meera Fancy Stores, Thakkar Bapa Ward No. 9, Premnagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.), Presently Residing At Village Madhar Station, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Distrit – Raipur (C.G.) in Cr. MCC No.242/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:00:58 +0530 2 application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the applicant/husband to pay of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent No. 2/ daughter (total Rs. 6,000/-). 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 were married on 11.05.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs at Village Mandhar, Tahsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.). After marriage, the respondent began residing with the applicant at his home. The couple lived together happily for about five years and had two children: Pratik Raj (now aged 7 years) and Twinkle Neware (now aged 4 years). In 2019, after five years of marriage, respondent No. 1 suddenly lodged a false complaint on 17.11.2019 at Mahila Thana, Raipur, and left the applicant’s house along with their younger daughter. She began residing with her aunt, Shital Baut, in Mandhar. During counseling at the police station, the applicant requested her to return, but she refused. Consequently, on 16.01.2020, the Mahila Thana declared the counseling had failed and referred the matter to the Court. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur, on 18.03.2020, seeking maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. Based on the pleadings of both parties, the learned Family Court allowed the application and awarded monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/- to Respondent No. 1 and ₹2,000/- to the minor daughter, totaling ₹6,000/-. Hence, this Criminal Revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No.1 lived a happy married life for five years. The respondent No.1 admitted in her cross-examination (para 19) that the applicant made efforts to enjoy life with her every year according to his 3 financial capacity. Despite this, in 2019, the respondent No.1 lodged a false report and left the matrimonial home to live with her aunt in Mandhar. She admitted in paras 19 and 21 of her cross-examination that she no longer resides at the applicant's home in Changorabhatha, Raipur. During police counseling, it was evident that the applicant expressed his willingness to reconcile, which is also confirmed by the respondent No.1 in para 24 of her cross-examination. However, she admitted that she chose to live separately on her own. The applicant is educated only up to Class 3 and earns a modest income by running a cycle repair shop in a rented premises, working from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This fact is also admitted by the respondent No.1. Despite knowing his limited financial capacity, the respondent No.1 deliberately claimed ₹20,000/- as maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No.242/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the applicant/husband to pay of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent No. 2/ daughter (total Rs. 6,000/-), and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti