1 2025:CGHC:29530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 69 of 2018 Peela Ram Sinha S/o Awadh Ram Sinha Aged About 41 Years Occupation Sevice, Shiksha Karmi Grade 3, R/o Village Tarkori, P. S. And Tahsil Dhamdha District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Champeshwari Sinha W/o Peela Ram Sinha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saigona, P. S. Khamhariya, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Siddhi Sinha D/o Peela Ram Sinha Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Champeshwari Sinha, Non Applicant No. 1 R/o Village Saigona, P. S. Khamhariya, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of Justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the non-applicants (wife and daughter) seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- each from the applicant (husband), alleging that after marriage, the wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, and was later assaulted and ousted from the matrimonial home on 14.11.2015. It was further alleged that the applicant, working as a Shiksha Karmi, had an illicit relationship with a fellow Shiksha Karmi, Kalyani Sinha, and had kept their two children, Ayushi and Gugun, with him. The wife claimed she had no independent source of income, while the applicant earned Rs. 22,000/- per month and had 10 acres of agricultural land generating an income of about Rs. 6 lakhs annually. In reply, the applicant denied all allegations, stating he had no illicit relationship, that his wife left the house without valid reason, and that he was financially responsible for his extended family. He also claimed efforts at reconciliation were unsuccessful due to the wife’s non-cooperation. After appreciating the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 11.10.2017, awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is not sustainable in law as it suffers from impropriety, perversity, and incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence. The court failed to consider that the non-applicant No.1 (wife) had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, despite repeated efforts made by the applicant for reconciliation. Moreover, the maintenance awarded at Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the daughter) is on the higher side, particularly when the applicant is already burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents, grandparents, and two daughters. The court also did not properly evaluate the actual income of the applicant, which is significantly less than what was claimed by the non-applicant and remains unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the Family Court overlooked the fact that the father of non-applicant No.1 is financially sound and capable of supporting her. Importantly, the wife made unfounded and serious allegations of adultery against the applicant by naming another woman, without making her a party to the proceedings, which itself amounts to mental cruelty and reflects the wife’s conduct, making her undeserving of maintenance under the settled legal principles. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.). 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, by its well-reasoned order dated 11.10.2017, has rightly granted maintenance to the non-applicants after carefully considering the pleadings and evidence brought on record. The Court correctly found that the wife was subjected to cruelty and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home, and that she had no independent means of livelihood. The applicant’s denial of the allegations and his claim that the wife left voluntarily were not supported by credible evidence. Furthermore, the Court rightly took note of the applicant’s regular income as a Shiksha Karmi and his agricultural holdings, which indicate his financial capacity to maintain his wife and child. The maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the daughter is reasonable, appropriate, and in accordance with the settled principles of law. The order reflects a fair and just appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. 5 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan