1 2025:CGHC:45865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1421 of 2019 Jwala Prasad S/o Pawan Sai Aged About 48 Years Occupation Compounder, R/o Village Dudhniya (Bishunpur) Police Station Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Rajnidevi W/o Jwala Prasad Aged About 40 Years Caste Painka R/o Anihapara Budhar Police Station Patna Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village Kharwat Tehsil Baikunthpur, , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Nisha D/o Jwala Prasad Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Her Represent Her Mother Smt. Rajni Devi, R/o Anihapara Budhar Police Station Patna Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Village Kharwat Tehsil Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be passed the suitable order for enhance the amount of maintenance award RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 passed by the learned below in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 95/2018, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court stating that her marriage with the present applicant was solemnized in the year 2003, and out of their wedlock, three children were born. It was alleged that the applicant developed an extra-marital affair with one Tara and, due to this reason, he ousted respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 from his house, as a result of which they are unable to maintain themselves. Therefore, she prayed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicant appeared before the court and denied the allegations, contending that due to the non-cooperation of respondent No. 1 and her dislike towards him, disputes arose between them. He further alleged that respondent No. 1 herself has illicit relations with another man. After recording evidence of both parties and considering the material on record, the learned trial court, by its order, directed the applicant to pay a total maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month (Rs. 2,500/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 2). Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is contended that witness No. 3, Satya Prakash, in his statement before the court, clearly deposed that respondent No. 1 herself left the house of the applicant and that 3 she often created quarrels in the family, but this vital aspect has not been considered by the trial court. It is further submitted that the applicant has successfully proved that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause, yet the learned court failed to take note of this fact. He also submits that the applicant has the responsibility to maintain his son and aged parents who are living with him, and therefore his financial liability is already heavy. Moreover, the applicant has no regular source of income, but despite this, the court below has passed an award of maintenance without considering his financial condition. It is further argued that since respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, though the applicant has always been willing to keep respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 with him. However, the applicant is ready to pay maintenance to his daughter, respondent No. 2. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the material and testimony of both parties before passing the impugned order. Respondent No. 1 categorically stated that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized in the year 2003 and, out of their wedlock, three children were born. It was further established that due to the applicant’s extra-marital relationship, respondent No. 1 was subjected to harassment and was ultimately ousted from the 4 matrimonial home along with respondent No. 2, leaving them without any means for sustenance. The applicant failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate his allegations against respondent No. 1 or to prove that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause. The Family Court, upon proper consideration of the evidence, rightly held that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and respondent No. 2 and that the applicant, being legally bound to provide for them, is liable to pay maintenance. Therefore, the award of Rs. 3,500/- per month (Rs. 2,500/- to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 2) is just, fair, and reasonable. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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