1 2025:CGHC:36520 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1250 of 2024 Puranlal Verma S/o Gajanand Verma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Sankara (Padadah), Tahsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Ambati W/o Puranlal Verma, Aged About 28 Years At Present Resident C/o Raghunath Verma, Resident Of Village-Harduwa, Police Station -Ghumka, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 8.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.253/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of the respondent/wife and directed the applicant/husband to pay amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.29 10:47:33 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the learned Family Court, Raipur, claiming maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month from the applicant/husband. She submitted that their marriage was solemnized on 25/04/2019 as per Hindu customs and that a male child, Kunal Verma, was born out of the wedlock, who is currently residing with the husband. She further alleged that the husband subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and expelled her from the matrimonial home on 30/09/2023, retaining custody of the child. She also claimed that the husband works as a mason earning ₹30,000/- per month, along with additional agricultural income, and hence sought maintenance. The applicant/husband filed a detailed reply denying all allegations. He stated that he never subjected the wife to any cruelty and that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 30/09/2023, leaving the child behind, as she was unwilling to care for him. On 01/10/2023, the husband, along with his friend, father, paternal uncle, and maternal uncle, visited her parental home to bring her back, but she refused and said she would return after 15 days. When he returned after 15 days along with family members and local elders, she again refused to return. The husband then approached the Women’s Cell, Rajnandgaon, seeking counseling. The wife appeared on 04/11/2023 after receiving a second notice, but again refused reconciliation. Another counseling session was scheduled on 06/12/2023, where she demanded the return of all gifts received during marriage but declined to compromise or return to the matrimonial home. The husband also submitted that the wife belongs to a financially well-off family owning 15 acres of agricultural land, and she herself earns ₹300 per day through labour. In contrast, the husband earns only ₹200 per day and supports himself and the child. He resides in a rented house for which he pays 3 ₹2,000 per month and has no financial support from his parents. Given these circumstances, he is financially strained and unable to pay maintenance. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record, and ignoring the fact that the wife is capable of maintaining herself and left the matrimonial home without valid reason, still partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC and directed the husband to pay ₹1,500/- per month to the wife. The respondent/husband, being a daily-wage labourer with the sole responsibility of raising the child, does not have the financial means to pay the said amount. Therefore, the impugned order is unjust and deserves to be set aside. Hence, this revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12/09/2024 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and procedure, and suffers from perversity and respondent of mind. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant/husband never subjected the wife to cruelty or ill-treatment. The wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 30/09/2023, leaving the child in the husband's care, as she did not wish to keep the child. On the following day, i.e., 01/10/2023, the husband, accompanied by his friend, father, paternal uncle, and maternal uncle, visited her parental home to bring her back. She refused, stating she would return after 15 days. Despite the husband's repeated efforts, the wife refused to return. The husband approached the Women’s Cell, Rajnandgaon for counseling. The wife appeared only after receiving a second notice on 04/11/2023 and again declined to return. Another attempt at counseling on 06/12/2023 also failed, as the wife demanded the return of all gifts given at the time of marriage but refused any compromise. The respondent/wife belongs to a financially sound family 4 owning 15 acres of agricultural land. She also earns ₹300 per day through labour and is capable of maintaining herself. In contrast, the husband earns only ₹200 per day, has only one acre of agricultural land in his father’s name, lives in a rented house for which he pays ₹2,000 per month, and bears full responsibility for the child’s upbringing. The respondent/wife is residing with her parents out of her own will and has refused to return despite sincere efforts by the husband. Her decision to leave the child behind further indicates her lack of intention to continue the marital relationship. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife is self-sufficient and deliberately deserted the matrimonial home. Yet, the Court partly allowed her application under Section 125 CrPC and directed the husband, a daily wage labourer with dependent child, to pay ₹1,500 per month as maintenance, which he cannot afford given his financial condition. The applicant does not have sufficient income to pay the maintenance awarded, and the impugned order is unjust and unsustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent/wife has stated that she is not engaged in any employment and has no source of income. She claims that due to the harassment by the applicant, she has become weak and is facing difficulties in meeting her basic needs. 5 She has denied working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and receiving ₹1,000 per month under the Mahatari Vandan Yojana, although she has admitted that she resides with her father, who owns 15 acres of agricultural land. However, even if the respondent engages in some work to sustain herself, it does not absolve the applicant of his legal obligation to provide maintenance. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after all hearing all the statement 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 or infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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