1 2025:CGHC:30944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1268 of 2019 Santosh Nirala S/o Ram Kumar Nirala, Aged About 38 Years Caste Satnami, Occupation - Transporting, At Present R/o Rawan Bhatha, Indira Chowk, Ward No. 18 Mandir Hasaud, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Surekha Nirala W/o Santosh Nirala Aged About 35 Years Occupation House Wife, Caste Satnami, At Present R/o C/o Father Chaman Lal Sontake, Village Ramadabari, Post Bawankera, Police Station - Patewa, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 2. Minor Ku. Neha Nirala, D/o Santosh Nirala Aged About 15 Years Through Natural Guardian Father Santosh Nirala ( Applicant ) , At Present R/o Rawan Bhatha, Indira Chowk, Ward No. 18 Mandir Hasaud, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:18 +0530 2 applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case that respondent No. 01 filed an application before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.), submitting that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized about 17-18 years ago according to the customs prevailing in their community. Thereafter, she continuously resided with the applicant at his house, and out of their wedlock, two daughters and one son were born. She further submitted that for the past one year, disputes arose between respondent No. 1 and the applicant regarding the applicant’s alleged love affair with another woman, and due to this, the applicant drove respondent No. 1 and her daughter out of his house. She is presently residing at her parental home and has filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the applicant. 5. The applicant filed his reply to the application, denying all adverse allegations made against him, and specifically denied having any 3 love affair with any woman or having married anyone else. He submitted that all allegations made by respondent No. 1 are baseless, and that he wishes to reside with respondent No. 1 and his family, but respondent No. 1 has, for the past one or two years, been making false allegations against him and has left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. She is presently residing with her father, whereas the applicant earns only Rs. 9,000/- per month and has the responsibility of taking care of his father, mother, and children, who are presently residing with him. He also bears the expenses of their schooling and daily needs, while respondent No. 1, without any sufficient reason, has left the applicant’s house. He further submitted that the agricultural land in question is very small and is joint family property. He also submitted that the two vehicles he owns are under finance, for which he pays an installment of Rs. 27,400/- per month towards the loan, due to which he is not generating any income from the said vehicles and is currently unable even to pay the loan amounts. Hence, he prayed for the rejection of the application filed by respondent No. 1. 6. Learned Family Court, after considering the facts, circumstances, and evidence adduced by the parties, vide its impugned order dated 31.08.2019, allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 in respect of her claim only and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1. The application was rejected in respect of respondent No. 2, as she is presently residing with the applicant. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order 4 dated 31.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and law. Learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the applicant is a person below the poverty line and holds a BPL card, under which he receives family ration for his family. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is residing separately at her father’s house without sufficient reasons and out of her own will, and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance. He submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant, being below the poverty line, had two vehicles financed under an employment scheme and is presently paying a sum of Rs. 27,400/- as loan installments. Due to this, he is not earning any income from the said vehicles and is unable to pay the loan installments properly, thereby facing severe financial hardship. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home of her own will, leaving behind her three children, whose responsibility has fallen upon the applicant. The applicant is taking care of their educational and daily expenses, and is also responsible for maintaining his father and mother, who are not earning and are dependent on him. He further submits that learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant has no love affair with any woman and has not performed any second marriage. The applicant had been keeping his wife and children with him, bearing all their expenses, and ensuring their well-being. He also submits that learned Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant is earning a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month, whereas 5 there is no factual basis, circumstances, or evidence on record to support such a conclusion. In view of the facts mentioned in the reply, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. Learned Family Court ought to have considered that the agricultural land owned by the applicant is very small in size and is joint family property, wherein the applicant’s two brothers are also co-owners, and their family members are also dependent upon the income from the said land. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the applicant is earning only Rs. 9,000/- per month, while his three children and his father and mother are dependent upon him. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance would severely affect the needs of the other family members who are dependent on him. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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 respondent No. 01 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek