1 2025:CGHC:29225 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1211 of 2019 Basant Ram S/o Shri Ram Aged About 59 Years Caste Uranv R/o Telaidhar (Dumarpara), Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Shri Basant Ram Aged About 52 Years Caste Uranv R/o Radhapur Lalmahua, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Anista Kujur D/o Shri Basant Ram Aged About 20 Years Caste Uranv R/o Radhapur Lalmahua, Police Station And Tahsil Sitapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Neel Ratan Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.37/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No.1 are husband and wife, and the respondent No. 2 is their child. Currently, they are residing separately. Respondent No.1, was married to the applicant about 20 years ago in a customary tribal ceremony. After the marriage, she went to live with the applicant in his village, Telaidhar, where they had three children - one daughter and two sons. About 5-6 years ago, the respondent No.1 started living separately from the applicant alongwith their daughter, while the applicant lives with their two sons. The applicant and respondent's marital relationship deteriorated due to the applicant’s excessive drinking, which led to physical abuse. The applicant’s violent behavior caused the respondent No.1 to suffer a fractured leg, which was treated by her parents. Due to this injury, the respondent No.1 is unable to perform heavy work. The applicant is a wealthy farmer in village Telaidhar, owning about 6 acres of agricultural land and also engaged in the business of selling cow's milk, earning an annual income of approximately Rs.2,00,000. Based on these allegations, the respondent has sought maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month for herself and her daughter. Thereafter, the applicant 3 filed reply denying the allegations. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned dated 21.06.2019 is illegal and bad in the eye of law and is very excessive in nature as it has been passed without considering the materials available on record. He further submits that the respondent No.1 has no sufficient means to reside separately from the applicant, so far as allegation of cruelty is concerned, no cruelty has been committed by the applicant against the respondent No.1. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent 4 No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent No.1, Savitri Bai, is the lawfully wedded wife of the applicant, and their marriage is still subsisting. It is also proved that the respondents are living separately from the applicant with sufficient and reasonable cause and are unable to maintain themselves and their daughter. On the other hand, the respondent, who is engaged in agricultural work and labor, has the means to maintain the respondents but has neglected to do so. Given these circumstances, the Family Court concluded that the respondents were entitled to maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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