1 2025:CGHC:41453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1032 of 2022 Dhaniram Kurre S/o Ram Charan Kurre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Udantal, Post Office Dagori, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ramsheela Kurre W/o Dhaniram Kurre Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhadaura, P.O. Jairam Nagar, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Siddhi Kurre D/o Dhaniram Kurre 10 Months, R/o Village Bhadaura, P.O. Jairam Nagar, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikram Usendi, holding the brief of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Usendi, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2022, which is an application for condonation of delay of 112 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2022 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.18/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision according to the applicant are that the respondent No.1, who is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). The marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2016 by performing Hindu rituals and, out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a baby girl in February, 2018. The applicant, being a villager and uneducated, is unable to recall the exact date of marriage or the date of birth of the child. In the application filed under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C., the respondent stated that she is the married wife of the applicant and that a girl child was born from the said wedlock. The applicant runs his livelihood by doing daily wage labour and earns only a meagre amount sufficient for his subsistence. In the year 2016-17, when he had gone to a nearby city 3 to earn livelihood, the respondent No.1, behind his back, left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, on his request, she returned and lived with the applicant till November, 2021. When the applicant came back on one occasion, he found that the respondent was no longer in the matrimonial house, and upon making inquiries from the neighbours, he came to know that her brother had taken her away. Despite repeated efforts, the respondent refused to return to the matrimonial home. 5. To the utter surprise of the applicant, the respondent thereafter moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. making allegations that the applicant demanded motorcycle and dowry, harassed her mentally and physically, and even attempted to kill her by setting her on fire. She further alleged that a social meeting was convened in respect of these disputes, wherein a compromise was arrived at and she returned to the matrimonial home, but according to her, the applicant again started harassing and assaulting her in an intoxicated state with demand of dowry. In the said application, the respondent also claimed that the applicant earns a monthly income of Rs. 7,500/- and owns 2.00 acres of agricultural land yielding Rs. 52,000/- per year, along with Rs. 20,000/- from other crops. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant had filed his reply before the learned Family Court stating inter alia that he is a poor person, earns his livelihood only by daily wage work, and is always ready and willing to keep and maintain the respondent and their daughter with him. He categorically denied having any substantial source of income as alleged. However, the learned Family Court, without 4 affording due opportunity of hearing to the applicant and without his prior knowledge of the scheduled proceedings, proceeded to pass the impugned order ex parte against him. Hence, the revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is arbitrary, unlawful, improper and not a well-reasoned order, having been passed in a callous and casual manner by the learned Family Court without impartial consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife was living with the applicant from December 2018 to November 2021, yet proceeded ex parte in allowing her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court also erred in not considering the applicant’s poor financial condition, as he categorically stated that he earns merely Rs.1500/- per month and was further rendered jobless due to the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent national lockdown from 22.03.2020, being a daily wager. The Court failed to apply the settled principles of law regarding maintenance, including consideration of source of income, the possibility of reconciliation, and the bona fide intentions of the parties. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per 5 month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing that it is an admitted fact that applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and respondent No.2 is their daughter. Furthermore, the wife (respondent no. 1) had sufficient reasons to live separately from her husband due to continuous harassment and dowry demands. It was also noted that the applicants had no independent source of income, whereas the husband earned through labor work and agricultural land. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil