1 2025:CGHC:32939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 34 of 2022 Ram Lalan S/o Shri Harinarayan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, (Jaynagar), P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Mayavati W/o Ram Lalan Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, Present Resident At Village Labji, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Anuradha D/o Ram Lalan Aged About 4 Years Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother, Non Applicant No. 1, Mayavati, Wife Of Ram Lalan, R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, Present Resident At Village Labji, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that the Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Family court Surajpur District Surajpurin in Mis. Criminal case No.94/2021 CNR-CGGSJ 060001452021 (Myavati & another Vs Ram Lalan), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant was married to non-applicant no.1 about eight years ago as per their customs, and non-applicant no.2 was born out of the wedlock. On 03.07.2021, the non- applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant and his parents subjected non-applicant no.1 to cruelty for dowry, attempted to murder non-applicant no.2 by strangulation foiled due to neighbor’s intervention and forcibly ousted non-applicant no.1 without providing her medical treatment. Despite advice from the non-applicants’ family in a panchayat meeting, the applicant refused to take them back. It was also alleged that the applicant remarried, which he admitted at the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. The non-applicants claimed maintenance of ₹10,000 each, citing the applicant’s monthly earnings as a mason (₹15,000–₹20,000) and annual agricultural income of ₹8–10 lakhs. The applicant denied the allegations, stating the non-applicants were living separately without sufficient reason and that efforts were made to bring them back. He also claimed that the non-applicant no.1 had sufficient means to sustain herself. In support, non-applicant no.1 and her father were examined as AW-1 and AW-2, while the applicant and his father were examined as 3 NAW-1 and NAW-2. The family court, while holding the cruelty allegations untrustworthy in para 15 & 16, still awarded ₹1500 to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1000 to non-applicant no.2 as monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by the reasoning and findings of the family court, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and is therefore liable to be set aside. The non-applicants are residing separately without any just and reasonable cause, yet the Family Court failed to appreciate this aspect before awarding maintenance. Notably, in para no. 15 and 16 of the judgment, the Court itself concluded that the allegations regarding dowry demand and cruelty were not proved, yet it erroneously proceeded to grant maintenance without any legal basis. Furthermore, no cogent or reliable evidence has been produced by the non-applicants to establish the applicant’s income; still, the Court presumed his financial capacity without proper verification. Additionally, there is no credible evidence on record to prove that the applicant has remarried or is residing with another woman, but the Court has incorrectly drawn such inference, which is perverse in law. The learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the testimonies of the witnesses and has passed the impugned order in an arbitrary and unjust manner, making it unsustainable in the eyes of law. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record and passed a just and reasoned order. While the Court found that the allegations regarding cruelty and dowry demand were not sufficiently proved, it also took into account the overall circumstances of the case, including the strained relationship between the parties, the applicant’s refusal to take back the non-applicants despite intervention by the panchayat, and the applicant’s own admission of remarriage at the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. Considering the financial incapacity and dependent status of the non-applicants, particularly non-applicant no.2 being a minor child, the Court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant a modest and reasonable amount of maintenance ₹1500 per month to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1000 per month to non-applicant no.2. The order reflects a balanced approach that upholds the spirit of social justice and protects the rights of the dependents, in accordance with the objectives of the provision. 7. Considering the submission 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 5 this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan