1 2025:CGHC:45677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1061 of 2025 Ramesh Kukreja S/o Ishwardas Kukreja Aged About 39 Years R/o House No. 18, Happy Home, Kukreja Form House Mahavir Nagar, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Saumya Kukreja W/o Ramesh Kukreja Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o Late Daulatram Lakhwani, Deepak Colony, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. 2. Minor Mahi Kukreja S/o Ramesh Kukreja Aged About 7 Years Minor Though Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Saumya Kukreja, R/o C/o Late Daulatram Lakhwani, Deepak Colony, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.539/2024, PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.09 18:53:42 +0530 2 whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 5,000/- for respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant solemnized marriage with Respondent No. 1 on 16.02.2014 according to Hindu customs. After marriage, Respondent No. 1 began residing at her matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock, Respondent No. 2, their son, was born. Respondent No. 1 has alleged that after some time, the applicant and his family members began harassing and assaulting her over demands for dowry. She was subjected to cruelty and physical abuse, due to which she left the matrimonial home and is now residing with her son at her parental house. Respondent No. 1 has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is allegedly running an electrical shop and earns around Rs.50,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. Upon notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations and contended that he is not in a financial position to pay the claimed amount. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 26.07.2025, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance (Rs.5,000/- each to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2). The impugned order dated 26.07.2025 is illegal, perverse, and contrary to law. 3 Hence, the present revision petition is being filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant. Respondent No. 1, in her own deposition, admitted that she is employed at Anand Jewellery Shop, earning a monthly salary of Rs.19,000/-, credited to her bank account. Additionally, she has received an excess credit of Rs.32,359/- along with incentive amounts. Therefore, she is financially capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled to claim maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ill-treated the respondent and always made efforts to maintain the matrimonial relationship. It was Respondent No. 1 who, without any just cause, refused to live with the applicant and voluntarily started residing separately. The applicant has a very limited income and is not in possession of any agricultural land. His entire family, including his nephew, is completely dependent on him, and there is no other earning member in the household. The respondent has not produced any document to establish the applicant’s income. The Family Court failed to consider that the respondent left her matrimonial home without sufficient reason and made no effort to reconcile or return to the applicant. 6. The maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive and disproportionate to the applicant's financial capacity and is, therefore, liable to be reduced or set aside. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the respondent failed to prove the 4 applicant’s income and did not submit any documentary evidence in this regard. Hence, the maintenance awarded is based on presumption and not supported by record. In view of the above, the order dated 26.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is unsustainable in law and on facts, and is liable to be quashed or suitably modified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti