1 2025:CGHC:38903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1211 of 2022 Pradeep Gupta S/o Nand Kumar Gupta Aged About 32 Years Caste Kumhar R/o Village Chando Police Station Chando, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Babita Gupta W/o Pradeep Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o North Ring Road Kedarpur Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Arth Kumar S/o Pradeep Gupta Aged About 2 Years 2 Months, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother N.A. No. 1 Smt. Babita Gupta, R/o North Ring Road Kedarpur Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Aarvi D/o Pradeep Gupta Aged About 2 Years 2 Months, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother N.A. No. 1 Smt. Babita Gupta, R/o North Ring Road Kedarpur Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.36/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent No.1 Smt. Babita, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that she is the wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized on May 21, 2013. They have twin children, a son and a daughter, from their wedlock. The respondent No.1 claimed that the applicant started ill-treating her, leading her to leave the house and live with her parents. She has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and their children. She sought maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and their children, considering the applicant's monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. The applicant contested the application, denying the allegations and stating that the respondent left him without reason, had a love affair, and was already granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as 3 maintenance in a domestic violence case. He claimed to earn only Rs. 250 per day from a photocopy shop and is unable to maintain himself. The Family Court partly allowed the respondent's application and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000 per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, children. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court erred in not considering that the applicant was always willing to live with the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 left without valid reason or sufficient cause. Furthermore, the she is living with her family, has a love affair with another person, and is capable of maintaining herself as a teacher. She was also awarded Rs. 3,000/- in a Domestic Violence case. He also submits that the applicant has old-aged parents to support and is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondents. Moreover, the applicant's monthly income is only Rs. 250, making the awarded maintenance amount excessive. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.2,000/- per month to 4 respondent No.2 and and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance observing the the evidence of both parties, which proves that the applicant has physically and mentally tortured the respondent No.1 by beating her, resulting in the she residing at her parental home. Thus, she has sufficient reason to live separately from the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the applicant earns a monthly income of Rs. 1.5 lakhs from his business and trade. The applicant has claimed to have a qualification of 12th standard and admitted to paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicants in a domestic violence case, which the respondent No.1 has also acknowledged. The applicant has also stated that he took a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs to build a house and has paid Rs. 3,78,000/- towards it. He claimed to take care of his parents and owns a photocopy shop, earning a monthly income of approximately Rs. 5,000 to 6,000/-. The applicant stated that the respondent No.1 resides in her parental home and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month as a teacher. However, the applicant failed to provide any documents to support the respondent No.1’s income claims. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil