1 2025:CGHC:38442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1170 of 2022 Ravi Kumar Patel S/o Ramlal Patel Aged About 26 Years Occupation- Agriculture And Vegitable Business, Roojgar Guranty Labour , R/o Village Lamgaun, Police Station Btolee, Tahsil Lundra, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sunanda Patel W/o Ravi Kumar Patal Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Lamgaoun, Police Station Lundra (Dhourpur), Tahsil Lundra, Post- Lamgaoun, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Misti Patel D/o Ravi Kumar Patel Aged About 9 Years Res. No. 2 Through Natural Guardian, Mother of R/o No.1 Smt. Sunanda Patel, R/o Village Lamgaoun, Police Station Lundra (Dhourpur), Tahsil Lundra, Post- Lamgaoun, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. D.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.69/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 10:45:59 +0530 2 directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 1,500/- per months to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/daugther. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month for Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month for Respondent No. 2 from the applicant. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 23.05.2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals, and out of the said wedlock, a daughter named Kumari Misti Patel was born. It was further alleged that, after one year of marriage, the applicant began to torture the respondents and refused to maintain them, due to which Respondent No. 1 was compelled to live at her parental home. It was also stated that at the time, Respondent No. 1 was pregnant and suffered a miscarriage during hospitalization. Thereafter, she went to her parental home with her parents, allegedly without the applicant’s knowledge. It was also pleaded that the applicant is employed under the MNREGA (Rojgar Guarantee Scheme) and is earning a regular income. The respondent No. 1 (wife), without any justifiable reason, refused to live with the applicant. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. 3. The applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court, denying all allegations made in the maintenance application and asserting that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. The applicant further submitted that he has a 40% permanent disability as per the guidelines issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, notified by the Government of India vide S.O. 76(E), dated 04.01.2018. The applicant contended that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and expressed her unwillingness to reside with the applicant and his aged parents. The 3 applicant's father is also physically handicapped and suffers from multiple ailments. His mother is facing gynecological health issues, and the applicant has a younger sister who is of marriageable age. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and erroneously directed the applicant to pay maintenance to the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.03.2022, the applicant has preferred this revision petition before this Hon’ble Court seeking to set aside the said order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, unsupported by evidence, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court wrongly appreciated the case of the respondents while ignoring the contentions and evidence submitted by the applicant. This amounts to a legal error, as the applicant’s case was not duly considered during the proceedings. The application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The applicant is mentally unwell and has no independent source of income. The applicant's father, who is a peon in a government office, is the sole earning member of the family and bears all responsibilities, including medical expenses of the applicant’s mother. There is no dairy business, no vegetable business, and no cows in the household as falsely alleged. Respondent No. 1 has lodged false cases against the applicant multiple times. Despite residing in the same village, she has never returned to her matrimonial home. Several attempts were made through panchayat meetings involving the sarpanch, villagers, and relatives to reconcile the matter, but Respondent No. 1 refused to return. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 has sufficient income from her father's business and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant suffers from a 40% 4 permanent disability. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.69/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.2/daugther, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present 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 Preeti