1 2025:CGHC:28190 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1198 of 2019 1 - Gomti Sidar W/o Dinesh Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gandabordi, At Present Village-Bartunga, Police Station And Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Shrejal Sidar D/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Gomti Sidar, W/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar, At Present Resident Of Village-Bartunga, Police Station And Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Ritika Sidar Aged About 6 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Gomti Sidar, W/o Dinesh Kumar Sidar, At Present Resident Of Village-Bartunga, Police Station And Tahsil- Dabhra, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Dinesh Kumar Sidar S/o Mahettar Sidar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bandabordi, Post Office- Purena, Tahsil And Police Station- Kharsia, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harishankar Patel, learned counsel the applicants. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No. 1, namely, Gomti Sidar, who is the wife of the respondent, has died RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 during the pendency of this revision. 3. Accordingly, the petition so far as it relates to applicant No. 1, namely, Gomti Sidar, who is the wife of the respondent, is concerned the same is dismissed as infructuous. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 so far it relates to rejection of application on behalf of applicant no. 1 and proper maintenance be allowed in favour of applicant no 1, in the interest of justice.” 5. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹15,000 per month as maintenance, claiming that applicant no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and applicants no.2 and 3 are their daughters born out of wedlock. It is admitted that the respondent is employed as a Peon at the Boys Hostel, Halahuli. The applicants alleged that after marriage, applicant no.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent and his family, which led to her desertion and compelled her to reside at her parental home along with the children. Being a housewife without any independent source of income, she sought maintenance for herself and the children. After considering the pleadings and evidence of both sides, the learned 3 Family Court, by order dated 05.02.2019, partially allowed the application by awarding ₹2,500 each to applicant no.2 and 3 (total ₹5,000 per month), but rejected the claim of applicant no.1. Aggrieved by the partial rejection, this revision has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside, as it erroneously rejected the maintenance claim of applicant no.1 without proper appreciation of facts and evidence. The Court failed to consider that applicant no.1, a legally wedded wife with no independent income, was subjected to continuous cruelty and harassment by the respondent and was ultimately deserted by him. It was the respondent who made no efforts to reconcile or bring the applicants back, yet the Court wrongly held that applicant no.1 was living separately without reasonable cause. Despite the respondent’s regular employment as a Peon and ownership of agricultural land, the Court overlooked his capacity to maintain the applicants. Therefore, the finding against applicant no.1 is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court, by order dated 05.02.2019, rightly exercised its discretion by partially allowing the application under Section 125 CrPC, awarding ₹2,500 each to applicants no.2 and 3 (minor daughters), while 4 rejecting the claim of applicant no.1, Gomti Sidar. The Court correctly found that applicant no.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and failed to establish circumstances warranting maintenance. The respondent, being a Peon with limited income, is already burdened with family responsibilities, and the maintenance awarded to the children reflects a balanced approach. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan