1 2025:CGHC:29220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1217 of 2019 Dayalu Korkoriya S/o Late Hathi Ram Korkoriya Aged About 62 Years R/o Bharat Mata Chowk, Shanti Nagar, Near Ram Temple, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Vrinda Korkoriya W/o Dayalu Korkoriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Ram Temple, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tivit Korkoriya (Minor ) S/o Dayalu Korkoriya, Aged About 14 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Ram Temple, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Kavita Korkoriya D/o Lt. Shri Ramdas Korkoriya Aged About 26 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Ram Temple, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Surya Korkoriya S/o Dayalu Korkoriya Aged About 20 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Ram Temple, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmi Gupta holding the brief of Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Ms. Laxmi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.05.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.170/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married according to Hindu customs. They have two sons, Surya (18 years old), studying in 12th grade at Salem English School, and Trivet Kumar (14 years old), studying in 9th grade at St. Paul's School, both sons live with their mother, and the applicant does not provide for their maintenance. After some time of marriage, the applicant’s behavior towards the respondent No.1 became unpleasant, and he failed to fulfill his family responsibilities. Over the past 3-4 years, the applicant’s behavior has completely changed, and he has become irresponsible. The applicant started suspecting the respondent No.1’s character and would create a scene when she went to learn tailoring to support the household expenses. He would publicly humiliate her and beat her, using foul language. The applicant is also alleged to be a habitual drinker and would 3 often beat the applicant under its influence. The respondent No.1 has further alleged that the applicant was working as a Chief Officer Superintendent in the Railways, earning a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-. He also owns a house worth Rs.60 lakhs and 5 acres of agricultural land, generating an income of Rs.20,000. The respondent No.1, on the other hand, has no source of income, therefore, she sought maintenance of Rs.25,00/- per month from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply deny all the claims and allegations made by the respondent No.1. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties had directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in considering the fact that the respondent No. 1 had chosen to live separately from the applicant without sufficient reason, which dis-entitling herself from claiming maintenance on grounds of willful desertion. He further submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had made every effort to salvage the marital relationship, despite which the respondents refused to maintain cordial relations with him. Even though they resided in the same house, the respondents' decision to live separately amounted to willful desertion. He also submits that the Family Court erred in appreciating the fact that respondent is capable of maintaining herself, as she was working at Krishna 4 Public School, Samta Colony, Raipur, until April 5, 2019, and earning an income. Therefore, the Court's finding regarding the respondent's inability to maintain herself is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The Court overlooked the respondent's employment and income, which are relevant factors in determining her eligibility for maintenance. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the income and expenses of the parties, the responsibilities of the applicant, the inflation rate, and all the circumstances and thereafter came to the conclusion that it would be justifiable to award a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3,500 to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500 to respondent No.2. 7. 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil