1 2025:CGHC:32617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 927 of 2021 Tapranjan Samal S/o Dolamani Samal Aged About 33 Years Occupation Computer Coordinator (Tahsil Office Basna), R/o Jagdishpur Road, Ward No.2, Basna, P.O. Basna, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mention As Saman In Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus Smt. Shweta Samal W/o Tapranjan Samal Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Nil, Presently R/o Shweta Samal, Daughter Of Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Shriram Colony, Mahasamund, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Baghel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Baghel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 43/2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (Misc. Criminal Case No. 43/2020), seeking a monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/-. It was alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.2017 as per Hindu customs, and soon after, the non-applicant was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the applicant and his family due to dowry demands, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She further pleaded that she had no independent source of income, while the applicant was financially sound, earning from his job as a computer operator and from agriculture. In response, the applicant denied all allegations, contending that the non-applicant was well-educated and capable of maintaining herself, and that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home because she was unwilling to live with his parents. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹8,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Aggrieved by this order, 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, law, and evidence on record. The Court failed to properly 3 consider the actual income of the applicant, who is not a government employee but merely a casual worker earning approximately ₹300 per day, and also bears the responsibility of maintaining his elderly parents. No documentary evidence regarding the applicant’s income was produced. Moreover, the non- applicant is a well-educated and physically fit woman, fully capable of maintaining herself, and there is no evidence on record proving her incapacity to do so. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is residing at her parental home out of her own volition and has made false allegations against the applicant. In view of these facts, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is excessive and unjustified, and thus liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.). 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 order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasonable, and based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. The Court rightly held that the non-applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant and having been compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to harassment, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite the applicant’s claims, there was no sufficient 4 evidence to prove that the non-applicant was earning or capable of maintaining herself. The Court also took into account the applicant’s earning capacity, including income from his work and agricultural sources, and accordingly awarded ₹8,000/- per month as maintenance. The decision reflects a balanced approach, considering the needs of the non-applicant and the financial capacity of the applicant. 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. 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 records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan