1 2025:CGHC:32924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1057 of 2023 Chandresh Kurre S/o Shri Jhanakram Kurre Aged About 29 Years R/o Near Ramdarbar, Kota, Golu Kirana Store, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Pammi Kurre W/o Shri Chandresh Kurre Aged About 29 Years At Present Resident Of Care Of Kishan Koshle, Suryanagar, Gogaon, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Gaurav Kurre S/o Chandresh Kuree Aged About 6 Years At Present Resident Of Care Of Kishan Koshle, Suryanagar, Gogaon, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chitranta Kurre D/o Chandresh Kurre Aged About 3 Years Non Applicant No. 2 And 3 Are Minors Represented Through Non Applicant No. 1 Smt. Pammi Kurre At Present Resident Of Care Of Kishan Koshle, Suryanagar, Gogaon, Raipur Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 15 /07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 264/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 untill her marriage towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage solemnized between the applicant and respondent No.1 on 19.05.2013 as per the Hindu rites and ritual at Suryangar, Gogaon, Raipur (C.G.). The case of the respondent No.1 stated in the application is that the applicant and his family members were tortured the respondent No.1 on account of dowry mentally and physically and also committed Marpit and abused her thereafter ousted the her therefore, she started residing in her parental house. The respondent No.1 got ill, thereafter her parents were providing treatment and spent amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Earlier the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which has been compromised in Lok Adalat on 10.07.2021 with assurance that applicant will not commit Marpit with her, but later 3 on the applicant has further committed the Marpit with respondent No.1 and from then on, she is residing separately. On 31.10.2021, the applicant has called the social meeting in which the respondent No.1 has participated in which no fruitful result came out. Thereafter, on 08.04.2022, the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Raipur and claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter the learned Family Court has issued notice to the applicant in which the applicant has filed reply and written argument to the applications and denied the claim averment and stated that the respondent is residing in her parental house without any sufficient reason. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 is able to maintain herself by working in hotel and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and Silai-Kadhai work and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Family court has examined the witnesses and considered the documents available on record and finally delivered the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 and partly allowed the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent no.1 Rs. 5000/- and respondent no.3 Rs. 2000/- (total Rs. 7,000/. The respondent No.2 will reside with applicant/father and respondent No. 3 will reside with respondent No.1/ mother, hence the learned trial Court granted maintenance to respondents No.1 and 3 only. Hence this revision. 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, liable to be set-aside. Further, the order granting maintenance has been passed without appreciating the material on records. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is working as labour work and there is no source of income. Earlier, the matter was compromised between the applicant and respondents in the Lok Adalat despite that the respondent has not complied the direction passed in Lok Adalat deserted the applicant. The applicant has called the social meeting and tried to resolve the dispute but the respondents are not ready and willing the settle the dispute and reside with the applicant. Prima facie there is no proof of respondent being driven out from her matrimonial home. Also, a bare reading of the expenses mentioned by respondent No.1 proves that she is exaggerating her expenses. The respondent No.1 have lied and has stated different figures of applicant income before different forum, thus proves that the respondent is lying about income of applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 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. 5 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 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance until her marriage observing that the respondent No.1 has sufficient cause to live separately from the applicant / husband and further since respondent No. 3 (child) is the daughter of applicant and respondent No.1 and is living with her mother/respondent No.1, as such, she cannot be denied maintenance on this basis and as such, they are entitled for grant as 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal