1 2025:CGHC:41288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 963 of 2024 Amit Kumar Verma S/o. Shri Pradeep Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o. Ratu Road, Sukhdevnagar, Ranchi, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Apurwa Kashyap W/o. Shri Amit Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o. Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, Police Station - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Anika Verma D/o. Shri Amit Kumar Verma Aged About 7 Years Respondent No. 2 Is Minor Representing Through Her Mother- Smt. Apurwa Kashyap, R/o. Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, Police Station - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 learned Judge Family Court Ambikapur District Surguja in Miscellaneous Crimnal Case No. 22/2019 in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 was married to the applicant on 26.11.2015 at Ambikapur, and out of the wedlock one daughter, respondent No.2, was born. During her pregnancy, when her health deteriorated and she was unable to perform household work, her mother-in-law started abusing her, the applicant, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted her and pressurized her to undergo sonography. It was further alleged that after the birth of the daughter, she was taunted, her pregnancy was terminated twice, and she was left without any source of income, whereas the applicant, engaged in building construction business, was earning about Rs. 80,000/- per month. The applicant, in his written statement, denied the allegations, stating that he was earning only Rs. 15,000/- per month from private employment, respondent No.1 frequently stayed at her parental house, suffered from certain health issues which were concealed at the time of marriage, and that she had left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. He further submitted that he had filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, and prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 27.06.2024, partly allowed the application and awarded 3 maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 (total Rs. 10,000/-) without there being any cogent material on record to justify such computation. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is residing separately without any sufficient cause, despite the applicant’s repeated requests to resume cohabitation, and the applicant has even instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is engaged in a private job, earning only Rs. 15,000/- per month, and is not in a financial position to bear the maintenance amount so awarded. It is further submitted that the applicant is willing to maintain his wife and child in the matrimonial home, but the respondents have chosen to live separately without justification; yet, the Family Court has erroneously granted maintenance in the aforesaid sum. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after appreciating the material on record, rightly concluded that respondent No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent No.2, being his minor daughter, are entitled to be maintained by the applicant. The allegations of harassment, physical assault, and neglect during pregnancy, coupled with the admitted fact that the respondents have no independent source of income, establish sufficient cause for their living separately. The applicant’s plea of limited income was duly considered, and the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month each, as awarded, is just, reasonable, and commensurate with the needs of the respondents and the earning capacity of the applicant. 8. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan