1 2025:CGHC:34072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 976 of 2022 Laxmikant Dhruv S/o Chain Singh Dhruv, Aged About 37 Years R/o Mana Basti, Police Station Mana Camp, Tahsil Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Premin Dhruv W/o Laxmikant Dhruv D/o Ramnath Dhruv @ Nanku Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khatti, Post Parsada, Police Station Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahima Dhruv, D/o Laxmikant Dhruv, Aged About 7 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Non Applicant No. 1 Premin Dhruv R/o Village Khatti, Post Parsada, Police Station Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Heena Dhruv, D/o Laxmikant Dhruv, Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Non Applicant No. 1 Premin Dhruv R/o Village Khatti, Post Parsada, Police Station Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel the applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the order dated 29.07.2022 passed in M.J.C. Case No. 539/2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant no.1 (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant (husband). The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.05.2011 as per Hindu rites, and from their wedlock, two children, non-applicant no.2 and 3, were born on 28.05.2012 and 30.09.2013, respectively. It is an admitted fact that the non-applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and the children are from the said marriage. The dispute arose when the applicant and his family members allegedly questioned the character of the wife, subjected her to physical assault, and ousted her from the matrimonial home. Despite efforts through a social meeting, the behavior of the applicant did not improve, and since 18.04.2017, the wife has been living separately at her parental home. On 17.11.2018, she also lodged a police complaint at Mana Camp, Raipur, following which the applicant was arrested and remained in jail for six days. Subsequently, on 03.06.2019, the wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance, alleging that the applicant earns Rs. 45,000/- per 3 month through electrician work and income from ancestral property. The applicant denied the allegations and contended that the wife has sufficient income through tailoring work and is capable of maintaining herself. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and documents submitted by both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to one of the children, totaling Rs. 8,000/- per month, which is now under challenge in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad both in facts and in law, and thus deserves to be set aside. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant does not have sufficient or stable source of income, and no concrete evidence was produced by the non-applicant no.1 to establish the applicant’s alleged earnings. It is a well-settled legal principle that only a legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance, and in this case, serious doubts were raised about the character and conduct of the non- applicant no.1, which the applicant substantiated through evidence. The Family Court did not properly evaluate or marshal the evidence placed on record and ignored the fact that the non-applicant no.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. Despite several efforts made by the applicant to reconcile the matter, including calling for a social meeting, the non-applicant no.1 refused to resume cohabitation and chose to reside separately. Furthermore, it has been established that the non-applicant no.1 4 has sufficient means to maintain herself as she is engaged in tailoring work. The maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- awarded by the Family Court is excessive and disproportionate to the applicant’s actual financial capacity, especially when he has limited income and financial liabilities. Hence, the order passed by the learned Family Court is unsustainable and calls for interference in this revision. 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 has rightly passed the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and material brought on record by both parties. It is an admitted fact that the non-applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 are their children born out of the lawful wedlock. The Court rightly took into account the serious allegations made by the wife regarding physical assault and character defamation, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home on 18.04.2017 and live with her parents. Despite efforts to resolve the matter socially, no positive outcome was achieved, and the conduct of the applicant, including his arrest following the police complaint dated 17.11.2018, further substantiated the claims of the wife. The Court also considered the fact that the wife has no fixed or sufficient source of income to sustain herself and her children, while the applicant has a regular 5 income from his work as an electrician and ancestral property. Therefore, the Family Court justly exercised its discretion and awarded a reasonable amount of Rs. 6,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the child as maintenance, which is neither excessive nor arbitrary, but fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and in line with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 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. 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