1 2025:CGHC:30930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1457 of 2019 Pankaj Chaturvedi W/o Shri Buddhiprakash Chaturvedi Aged About 28 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Tifra, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus 1. Ku. Surbhi D/o Shri Pankaj Chaturvedi Aged About 2 Years (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Varsha Chaturvedi. R/o Abhilasha Parisar, E.W.S., Block No. 28, House No. 334, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 2. Varsha Chaturvedi W/o Shri Pankaj Chaturvedi Aged About 23 Years R/o Abhilasha Parisar, E.W.S., Block No. 28, House No. 334, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05/09/2019 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.485/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.08 11:30:09 +0530 2 allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/daughter and Rs. 2,000/- (total Rs. 3,500/-) to the respondent No. 2/wife, as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 13.07.2013 according to Hindu rituals. On 29.05.2014, respondent No.1 was born out of their wedlock. Respondent No.1 alleged that the very next day of the marriage the applicant began to torture. He used to suspect her of loose character. She further alleged that at night the applicant does not sleep with her, instead he use to sleep with his mother. Once the applicant and his mother pour kerosene oil on her and force her to drink kerosene, due to which she was admitted to the hospital. She stated that the applicant is an electrical contractor and earn Rs. 30,000-35000/- per month. She demanded Rs. 20,000/- in total as maintenance. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned orders is bad in law, thus liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has not considered this fact that the respondent has gone with her father-in-law who resides separately from the applicant. The learned Family Court has not considered this fact that respondent is receiving her maintenance from the father-in-law and other sources. The learned Family Court has not considered this fact that the applicant is suffering from partial mental imbalance and is undergoing treatment. The learned Family Court has overlooked this fact that the respondent No. 2 is living her life lavishly and thereafter, the award of maintenance on higher side is bad in law. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that respondent No. - 02 Varsha Chaturvedi/wife does not have any source of income and due to this she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter Ku. Surbhi/respondent No.1 and she is living separately from the applicant/husband for sufficient reasons. Despite being an income earner, the applicant is refusing or neglecting to maintain the respondents. In such a situation, the respondents are entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti