1 2025:CGHC:30931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1446 of 2019 Jitendra Gajendra S/o Govindram Gajendra Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Thana And Tahsil Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Tara Sinha W/o Jitendra Gajendra Aged About 25 Years By Caste - Kalar, R/o Mathai Chowk Doundi, Tahsil Daundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Navisha D/o Jitendra Gajendra Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Tara Sinha, R/o Mathai Chowk Doundi, Tahsil Daundi, District- Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicant. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 17-10-2019 may kindly be set a side and the application filed by the mon applicants under section 125 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 were married on 28.11.2012 through a love marriage solemnized as per Hindu customs at the applicant’s residence. Out of their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 was born on 22.03.2014. Soon after the marriage, the applicant allegedly began abusing and mentally harassing non-applicant No.1, and during her pregnancy, left her at her parental home. It is further alleged that the applicant demanded a gold chain weighing one and a half tola, consumed alcohol, physically assaulted the non-applicant, leading to a miscarriage, and even took Rs. 50,000 twice from her. When she became pregnant again, she was left at her maternal village Sanaud, where the child was born and delivery expenses were borne by her father. Despite intermittent reconciliation, she was again subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family. Complaints were made at Police Station Rudri by both sides, but no effective action was taken. The applicant allegedly attempted to forcibly take the child while intoxicated, which was prevented by the intervention of neighbors and family members. In response to the maintenance 3 case, the applicant denied the validity of the marriage under Hindu law and claimed that non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home of her own will. He also contended that he is unemployed, burdened with loans, and does not own any income-generating property, while non-applicant No.1 holds a diploma in Civil Engineering and undertakes contract work with PWD, thereby earning well. After considering the submissions and recording evidence, the learned Family Court awarded Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance in favor of the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month in favor of the non-applicants despite the fact that the applicant is unemployed, has no independent source of income, and is financially dependent on his father. The trial court failed to consider that non-applicant No.1, holding a diploma in Civil Engineering, is independently engaged in contract work with the PWD Department and earns a substantial income, making her financially self-sufficient. It is further submitted that the non-applicant No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and is thus not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The applicant also submits that the alleged marriage was never proved as per law, and hence, non-applicant No.1 is not entitled to claim maintenance. Moreover, the applicant was proceeded ex parte on 17.09.2019 due to non-appearance, and the impugned order was passed without 4 proper adjudication of evidence. The trial court also failed to appreciate that the applicant’s income was neither proved nor supported by any documentary evidence, and the present application was filed only to harass the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod, District- Balod, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant and non-applicant No.1 were married on 28.11.2012 through a love marriage solemnized as per Hindu customs, and non-applicant No.2 was born from their wedlock on 22.03.2014. The records clearly reflect that non-applicant No.1 was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant soon after marriage, including being abandoned during pregnancy, being assaulted, and having suffered a miscarriage due to domestic violence. It is also evident that the applicant made financial demands, consumed alcohol, and failed to provide proper care or support. Despite her efforts to reconcile, the non-applicant continued to face harassment and was eventually left at her parental home without means of livelihood or child support. Complaints were made to the police, and despite the applicant’s denial of the marriage and his financial 5 liabilities, the Family Court, upon careful evaluation of the evidence and circumstances, rightly held that the non-applicants were entitled to maintenance. The Family Court’s order awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance is just, reasonable, and consistent with the welfare principle enshrined under Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring protection to a legally wedded wife and minor child from destitution. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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