1 2025:CGHC:33863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1294 of 2023 Krishna Sen S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Sen Aged About 27 Years R/o Sector-20, Kayabandha, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Hiteshwari Sen W/o Krishna Sen Aged About 22 Years D/o Late Shri Omprakash Sen, R/o Jorapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.398/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month, alleging that she was married to the applicant on March 20, 2020, and subjected to dowry harassment, forcing her to leave her matrimonial home. The applicant operates a salon, earning Rs.20,000/- monthly, while the respondent has no income source. After notice, the applicant denied the allegations. The Family Court partly allowed the respondent's application, directing the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance. Hence, the revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's family, including his elderly parents, are entirely dependent on him, and there is no one else to care for them and the Family Court erred in considering the applicant's familial responsibilities and obligations towards his dependents. Moreover, the respondent/applicant left the applicant's house without sufficient reason, thereby dis-entitling her to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. As she voluntarily abandoned the matrimonial home without justification, her claim for maintenance is not sustainable in law. He further submits that the respondent failed to provide evidence or documents to prove the applicant's income, rendering the maintenance award of Rs.5,000/- unsustainable. Without concrete proof of the applicant's financial capacity, the maintenance order is liable to be set aside due to lack of substantial evidence. He also submits that the applicant 3 operates a small shop and is the sole breadwinner for his elderly parents, who are entirely dependent on him, his financial responsibilities and limited income, the applicant is unable to pay maintenance. Therefore, the impugned maintenance amount is liable to be set aside. 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 respondent observing that respondent succeeded in proving that she is living separately from the applicant for just and sufficient reasons, further considering the circumstances of both parties, their economic and social status, and their needs had directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 7. Considering the submissions 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 4 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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