1 2025:CGHC:30216 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 803 of 2025 Vimal Vaishnav S/o Shri Chaturdas Vaishnav Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Kusumghata, Police Station And Tahsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Present Address- Ward No.2 Lormi, Police Station and Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Amba Devi W/o Shri Vimal Vaishnav Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.2 Lormi, Police Station And Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Krishna Vaishnav S/o Shri Vimal Vaishnav Aged About 9 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Amba Devi W/o Vimal Vaishnav, R/o Ward No.2 Lormi, Police Station And Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Ms. Mahima Tandan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Mahima Tandan, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure A- 1) (with reference to the non- applicant No.1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present applicant and non-applicant No.1 were married in 2008 as per Hindu rites, and two sons Raj Vaishnav (aged 14 years) and Krishna (aged 9 years), were born from the wedlock. Alleging persistent dowry-related harassment, physical assault, and eventual ousting from the matrimonial home in 2015, non-applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. She alleged that the applicant demanded a motorcycle and ₹5,00,000/- in dowry, repeatedly assaulted her, and retained their elder son while expelling her and the younger child. Several reconciliation attempts by her family were allegedly met with abuse and refusal. In contrast, the applicant denied all allegations, claiming instead that non-applicant No.1 left the house voluntarily, roamed with other men, and threatened him with false cases. He stated that she forcibly took possession of their houses and belongings, leaving him and their elder son to live in a rented house, while she allegedly earns through property rent, beauty parlor work, and employment at a clothing store. The applicant claimed to be a landless laborer with no steady income. Both parties cited incidents involving police complaints and mutual altercations. After considering the records and evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 15.05.2025, directed the 3 applicant to pay ₹2,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and ₹1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2, totaling ₹3,000/- as monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that The impugned order dated 15.05.2025 is illegal, perverse, and contrary to established legal principles, as the learned Family Court failed to properly assess the financial status and conduct of the non- applicant No.1. While the applicant does not dispute the maintenance awarded to non-applicant No.2, the grant of ₹2,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 is excessive, considering her independent earnings from the clothing store “Kisan Vastralaya” and part-time beauty parlor work, which together generate a substantial monthly income. The Court overlooked this financial independence, as well as the applicant’s limited means being a daily wage laborer with no land or stable income and residing in a rented house. Moreover, the Court did not adequately consider that the non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home without just cause, took household belongings, and filed false complaints, all of which affect her entitlement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant also bears sole responsibility for the care and education of his elder son, Raj Vaishnav, which imposes an additional financial burden. The allegations of dowry harassment, being uncorroborated, were not critically examined. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to non- applicant No.1 is disproportionate to the applicant’s earning capacity and deserves to be set aside. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, evidence, and the financial and personal circumstances of both parties, rightly passed the order dated 15.05.2025, directing the present applicant to pay ₹2,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and ₹1,000/- per month to non-applicant No.2. The Court correctly appreciated that despite the applicant’s denials, the allegations of consistent dowry harassment, physical abuse, and desertion by the non-applicant No.1, coupled with the fact that she is residing separately with the younger child and bearing the cost of living, justified the grant of maintenance. The amount awarded was modest and balanced, taking into account the applicant’s claim of being a daily-wage laborer and the alleged earnings of the non- applicant No.1, while ensuring that the basic needs of the deserted wife and minor child are met. The order reflects a just and fair consideration of the principles under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan