1 2025:CGHC:32952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 63 of 2022 Sonu Verma S/o Yashwant Verma Aged About 26 Years Occupation Cultivator , And Private Job In Cloth Shop Resident Of Vilage Datrenga, Police Station Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Purnima @ Poonam W/o Sonu Verma Aged About 24 Years Occupation Unless Resident Of Village Amora, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rudransh S/o Sonu Verma Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian His Mother Purnima @ Poonam , Resident Of Village Amora, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.L. Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, 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, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.J.C. No. 141/2020 or granted maintenance amount of Rs. 4000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from the applicant. It is undisputed that the applicant and non-applicant no.1 were married as per Hindu customs, and non- applicant no.2 was born out of the wedlock. non-applicant no.1 alleged that the applicant and his family subjected her to cruelty over dowry demands, failed to provide medical treatment for her illness (Bawasir), and ultimately forced her to leave the matrimonial home. She claimed she had no means of livelihood, whereas the applicant was working at a cloth shop earning ₹15,000 per month and also had income from ancestral agricultural land. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations, stating that non-applicant no.1 left the house without any just cause and was capable of maintaining herself. After hearing both parties and framing issues, the learned Family Court, by order dated 03.12.2021, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹2,500 per month to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1,500 per month to non-applicant no.2, totaling ₹4,000 per month. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed 3 the present revision, challenging the impugned order as erroneous and contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents presented by the applicant. The non-applicant no.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and has made no efforts to return, thereby disentitling herself from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant always attempted to maintain the matrimonial relationship, and even a compromise was reached before the Gram Panchayat, which the non-applicant ignored. The Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is unemployed, owns no agricultural land, and merely works as a laborer earning ₹250–300 per day. No documentary evidence was produced by the non-applicant to prove the applicant’s income, and her claim that he owns agricultural land is incorrect. Moreover, the non-applicant has not previously filed any complaints regarding alleged cruelty or dowry demands. Despite these facts, the Family Court arbitrarily awarded ₹4,000 per month as maintenance, which is excessive and unjustified in the absence of proven income. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.). 4 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 order passed by the learned Family Court is just, reasonable, and in accordance with law and the facts on record. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the Court rightly concluded that non-applicant no.1 was entitled to maintenance as she had no independent source of income and was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to cruelty and lack of proper care by the applicant. The applicant’s bare denial of allegations and assertion that non-applicant no.1 left without reason was not supported by any convincing evidence, nor was he able to establish that she had sufficient means to maintain herself. Furthermore, the maintenance awarded ₹2,500 for non-applicant no.1 and ₹1,500 for non- applicant no.2 is modest and balanced, keeping in view the applicant’s claimed limited income and the basic needs of the wife and child. The Family Court also appropriately considered the welfare of the minor child, which is of paramount importance. 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan