1 2025:CGHC:41439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1111 of 2024 Om Prakash Singh S/o Shri Radha Prakash Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Post Office, Shankarnagar, Masjid Gali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Gayatri Singh W/o. Om Prakash Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Post Office, Shankarnagar, Masjid Gali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shivani Singh D/o Om Prakash Singh Aged About 13 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gayatri Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar, Post Office, Shankarnagar, Masjid Gali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Sanjivini Singh D/o Om Prakash Singh Aged About 7 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Gayatri Singh, R/o Shanti Nagar, Post Office, Shankarnagar, Masjid Gali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount awarded order dated 04.08.2022 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 430/2018 may kindly be set- aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant, who is the husband of the respondent/wife. The applicant and respondent got married on 18.02.2001 at Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh, according to Hindu rituals and customs, and since then the respondent started residing in her matrimonial home. Immediately after the marriage, the applicant and respondent/wife were blessed with two daughters, namely Ku. Shivani Singh and Ku. Sanjivni Singh. Thereafter, disputes arose between both the parties. The respondent/wife has alleged that the applicant/husband, along with his family members, started harassing her physically and mentally for dowry, and cruelty was also inflicted upon her on the ground of the birth of girl children. The respondent claims that her family had given Rs. 50,000/- and a scooter to the appellant at the time of marriage. Despite that, the respondent alleged that the applicant and his family members used to torture her by beating, abusing, and pressurizing her for additional dowry. In view of such harassment, the respondent’s family lodged several complaints against the applicant/husband and his family members at Police Station Mowa, Raipur. It has also been alleged by the respondent/wife that since March–April 2018, the applicant/husband abandoned her and the two daughters without any valid reason and started residing separately with his parents and sisters. It has further been alleged by the respondent/wife that the appellant/husband beat her, and despite several attempts by family 3 members to convince him, the appellant refused to reconcile. It has also been alleged by the respondent/wife that the applicant is working as a gunman in S.I.S. Company, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, and that he is also the owner of shops which are rented out, thereby earning additional income. 4. Learned Family Court, after examining the witnesses, recording the evidence, and framing the issues, partly allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondents (Rs. 2,000/- to each respondent). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the present applicant is not employed anywhere. Learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent/wife herself admitted that she is working as a librarian in a school located at Shankar Nagar, Raipur, earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary, and she is also conducting private home tuitions. He also submits that the respondent/wife herself removed the applicant/husband from his own house after the accident of the applicant, and in such circumstances, the respondent/wife is not entitled to receive any maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the daughters of the applicant, who are living with their mother/respondent, have attained majority. One of the daughters, namely, Shivani Singh, has already attained the age of 21 years and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife did not submit any documentary evidence regarding the alleged monthly income of the applicant/husband, and false statements were made before the Court in this regard. Learned Family Court passed the impugned order ex-parte against the applicant, who was unable to 4 appear in the maintenance proceedings due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Learned Family Court has failed to consider that on 07.08.2019, an amount of Rs. 1,40,080/- was deposited in the applicant’s account, which was not salary but an insurance claim settlement received by the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is a 70% disabled person and is unable to perform daily activities on his own, being completely dependent on his sister, who runs a stationery shop at her residence. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the statements of witnesses in their correct perspective while granting interim relief to the respondent. The present applicant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to submit documents and raise arguments at the time of hearing. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal