1 2025:CGHC:36497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1109 of 2023 Laxman Prasad S/o Ramautar Aged About 46 Years Caste - Harijan, Occupation - Mason, R/o Village - Mahora, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1 - Shanti S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Aged About 42 Years D/o Tejilal, Caste - Harijan, Occupation - Nil, Village - Mahora, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Muskan Solanki D/o Laxman Prasad Aged About 14 Years Caste - Harijan, Minor Represented Through Mother Shanti Wife Of Laxman Prasad, Village- Mahora, Police Station - Patna, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prashant Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Verma, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.03.2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants, being the wife and minor daughter of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance, alleging that after 9–10 years of marriage the applicant, who works as a mason earning about ₹15,000 per month, subjected the wife to cruelty and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home. Upon notice, the applicant appeared and participated in counseling but subsequently remained absent, due to which the Family Court proceeded ex-parte on 28.01.2023. After recording the evidence of the non-applicants, the court, by ex-parte order dated 22.03.2023, directed the applicant to pay ₹4,000 per month (₹2,000 each) as maintenance, giving rise to the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2023 is perverse, arbitrary, and bad in law, having been passed ex-parte without affording the applicant proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the settled legal position that in matrimonial matters the parties must be given adequate opportunity to present their case; however, in the instant matter, the applicant was proceeded ex-parte merely on a single default. The Family Court further erred in awarding maintenance of ₹4,000 per month, which is excessive and 3 disproportionate considering the applicant’s limited means, as he is unemployed and lacks a permanent source of income. It was not considered that the non-applicant wife is living separately without any justifiable cause and is capable of maintaining herself, while also residing in the applicant’s house and availing his food grains and household resources. Moreover, the benefits under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of absolute right and must be based on genuine necessity, which is absent in this case. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District: Korea, (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 learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence available on record, rightly proceeded ex-parte when the applicant failed to appear despite due notice and opportunity, and correctly assessed the financial capacity of the applicant along with the genuine needs of the wife and minor daughter. Given that the applicant, being the legally wedded husband and father, has a statutory obligation to maintain them, and considering his admitted earning capacity of approximately ₹15,000 per month as a mason, 4 the award of ₹4,000 per month (₹2,000 each) as maintenance is reasonable, just, and in accordance with the principles laid down under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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 be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan