1 2025:CGHC:34093 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 878 of 2021 1 - Pushpanti Yadav W/o Shri Jaydeep Yadav Aged About 27 Years D/o Amrit Yadav R/o Village Batauli, Tahsil And Police Station - Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Siddharh Yadav S/o Jaydeep Yadav Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother And Legal Guardian Smt. Pushpanti Yadav D/o Amrit Yadav R/o Village Batauli, Tahsil And Police Station - Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Jaydeep Yadav S/o Shri Jagmohan Yadav Aged About 30 Years Caste Bargah, Occupation Vehicle Driver, Resident Of Village Batwahi, Chowki Raghunathpur, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. R.V. Ram Rajwade, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, 2 District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.76/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that applicant No. 1 and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 2.04.2014. Applicant No. 2 was born from their wedlock on 17.07.2016. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the Family Court, Ambikapur, alleging that after their marriage, applicant No. 1 went to live with the non-applicant, but she was subjected to cruelty by him and his family members from the beginning, ultimately leading to her ouster from her matrimonial home. Consequently, she is residing in her parental home with her son. applicant No. 1 lodged a complaint with the Batauli Police Station on 10.09.2018. It was further alleged that the non-applicant owns 20 acres of agricultural land and possesses vehicles such as a Scorpio, tractor, and school van, indicating sufficient sources of income. Despite this, he has not provided any financial support to the applicants, and since applicant No. 1 has no source of income, they filed the application for maintenance. After receiving notice, the respondent filed a reply denying the allegations. He claimed that applicant No. 1 is living separately without reasonable cause in her parental 3 home and is capable of maintaining herself, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance from the non-applicant. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide its order dated 23.09.2021, awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No. 2 only. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has erred in holding that the applicant No.1 is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get maintenance, further applicant No.1 is a lady and has no source of income, she was subjected to cruelty by her in- laws family members including respondent while she was living in her matrimonial house an ultimately she was ousted from the matrimonial house. He further submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is having 20 acres agricultural land and also having Scorpio, Tractor, School Van and thereby he is having sufficient source of income and also the amount given to the respondent No.2 is on lower side. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- to applicant No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent, Jaydeep Yadav, stated in his cross-examination 4 that he has not visited the place where the applicant No. 1, Smt. Pushpanti Yadav, claims to be employed, and therefore, it is not proven that she is currently working at that school. Hence, it cannot be concluded that applicant No. 1, Smt. Pushpanti Yadav, is incapable of maintaining herself. Furthermore, There is no justifiable and sufficient ground for applicant No. 1, Smt. Pushpanti Yadav, to live separately from the respondent, Jaydeep Yadav. Moreover, the respondent, Jaydeep Yadav, hires out the Scorpio vehicle, therefore, the Family Court concluded that it would be appropriate to award applicant No. 2, Siddharth Yadav, a monthly maintenance as aforementioned. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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