1 2025:CGHC:37948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 834 of 2021 Kamlesh Singh Sengar S/o Jeevdhan Singh Sengar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Dorli Post Dharamgadh, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara District Kabirdham Chattisgarh … Applicant versus Shrimati Kiran Bala Sengar, W/o Kamlesh Singh Sengar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o- Kumhari, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 28.08.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 18/2020, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:36:23 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent with the applicant was solemnized on 17.06.1998 at Rajhara. From their matrimonial relationship, a daughter named Kumari Shilpi was born in the year 1999. A few months after the birth of the daughter, the applicant began subjecting the respondent to physical and mental harassment. The applicant endured the abuse, and in the year 2000, the applicant took her to live in Raipur. The applicant worked as an auto-rickshaw driver in Raipur. After living peacefully for three to four months, he again started harassing the respondent and eventually forcibly left her at her father’s house and returned to his native village, Dhorli. The respondent has received 12 months of nursing training. However, she is not capable of supporting herself and her daughter. She is financially dependent on her father. The applicant runs a grocery business and works as an electrician in village Dhorli, earning approximately ₹11,000 per month. In addition, he holds around 22–23 acres of agricultural land in joint ownership, out of which his individual share is approximately 7 acres, yielding an annual income of about ₹1,00,000. Despite being financially capable, the applicant is neglecting and refusing to support the respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider and appreciate that the applicant, due to his physical condition, is incapacitated and unable to engage in any gainful employment. He has no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on his second wife, who earns only ₹3,000 per month and supports not only the respondent but also their two children from this limited income. Furthermore, the Court overlooked the fact that the applicant owns only 1.50 acres of agricultural land, which has been 3 mortgaged to ensure timely payment of monthly maintenance to the respondent. Additionally, the learned Family Court ignored that the respondent is highly educated and professionally trained as a nurse. She is gainfully employed at Shri Balaji Hospital, Mowa, District Raipur, earning a substantial income of ₹20,000 per month.. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 28.08.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 18/2020, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent, 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 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, and considering the conditions of the respondent, 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. 4 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti