1 2025:CGHC:41444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1049 of 2024 1 - Smt. Sadhmati Anchal W/o Ramanand Anchal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Londha, Tehsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Devraj Anchal S/o Ramanand Anchal Chunmun Vishwakarma, Aged About 8 Months (Now 10 Months), Minor Smt. Sadhmati Anchal (Applicant No.1), R/o Village Londha, Tehsil- Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ramanand Anchal S/o Tukdas Anchal Aged About 23 Years R/o Semarkona, Police Station Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.05.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.96/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mungeli, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for applicant No.1 (wife) and Rs.5,000/- per month for applicant No.2 (minor son) from the respondent. It was alleged that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and from their wedlock a son, applicant No.2, namely Devraj Anchal, was born. The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry, and since the demand was not fulfilled, she was misbehaved with and denied shelter in the matrimonial home, forcing her to live with her parents at Mungeli. She claimed that neither the husband is willing to take her back nor provide maintenance, despite having sufficient income from his job (Rs.20,000/- per month) and agriculture (Rs.3,00,000/- annually from 5 acres of land). The respondent, however, denied all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, stating that the wife left on her own and that he was willing to keep her, further contending that no complaint was ever lodged with the police. After appreciating the evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the application, holding that the wife is living separately without 3 sufficient cause and hence not entitled to maintenance, but granted Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance to applicant No.2, being the son of the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicants have preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and is entitled to maintenance. The evidence of applicant No.1 and her witness Mogra Bai (AW/2) clearly established that she is living separately due to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demand, as the husband used to quarrel and beat her in a drunken state. The finding that she is unwilling to live with her husband is erroneous, as in fact it is the husband who has refused to keep her and their son. The Court also failed to consider that she had lodged a complaint before Mahila Police Station, Mungeli regarding cruelty and dowry harassment. Rejection of the wife’s claim is perverse in light of the evidence on record, and the grant of a meagre Rs.2,500/- as maintenance for the minor son is wholly inadequate, particularly when the child is residing with the mother who has no independent income and is dependent upon her parents. The respondent is employed in a Jaggery factory earning Rs.20,000/- per month and also earns 4 Rs.3,00,000/- annually from 5 acres of agricultural land, thus having sufficient means to maintain both wife and child. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to applicant No.2, towards maintenance observing that the applicant-wife (applicant No. 1) failed to prove with sufficient evidence that she was living separately from the respondent- husband for valid and justified reasons like dowry harassment or cruelty. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance for herself. However, since the minor son (applicant No. 2) is residing with the mother and the father did not dispute his responsibility, the Court found him entitled to maintenance. Considering the respondent’s earning capacity, the Court awarded Rs.2,500/- per 5 month as maintenance for the minor child from the date of the application, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil