1 2025:CGHC:27750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1395 of 2018 Suryakant Kashyap S/o Late Chhatram Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Mohanpur, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Seeta Bai Kashyap W/o Suryakant Kashyap Aged About 27 Years R/o Mohanpur, Police Station Katghora, At Present, R/o Village Kasaipali, Police Station Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Tripti Kashyap D/o Suryakant Kashyap Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seeta Bai, R/o Village Kasaipali, Police Station Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Mayank Kashyap S/o Suryakant Kashyap Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Seeta Bai, R/o Village Kasaipali, Police Station Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad holding the brief of Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sannat, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Arvind Prasad holding the brief of Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.38/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the respondents total Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and the applicant took place on 17.05.2009, at Village Kasai Palli. After the marriage, the respondent No.1 lived in a joint family with the applicant’s family members. After marriage the applicant and his family members started harassing her after some time, allegedly due to the influence of the applicant’s sister, Pushpa, who had filed a false dowry harassment case against the respondent’s family members. The respondent alleged that the applicant and his family members demanded Rs.2,00,000 from her father, which she refused to ask for, leading to further harassment and abuse. The respondent claimed to have informed her parents about the harassment, but they were unable to take any action. The 3 applicant subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant and his family members, leading to her current situation. Due to which she got injury on her thigh and was unable to walk or cook, but the applicant and his family members continued to harass her. They also threatened to end their relationship and accused her of theft when her father opened a grocery store for them. On April 21, 2017, the applicant’s mother abused her and hit her head against the wall, and the applicant’s brother also threatened her. The respondent reported the incident to her father, who came to her matrimonial home and requested the applicant and his family members to treat her well. On May 11, 2016, the applicant forced her to take nine Niseplus tablets, which got stuck in her throat, and she had to be hospitalized. After this incident, the respondent started living with her parents along with her children. The respondent claimed that she has no source of income and her father is a retired person, while the applicant works at Maruti Plant and earns Rs.14,000 per month, has agricultural land, and a grocery store. The respondent prayed for a maintenance amount of Rs.15,000 from the respondent. After considering the documents available on record and statement of both the parties, the learned Family Court awarded total amount of Rs.6000/- per month (Rs.2000/- each) to the respondent from the applicant, hence the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court the erred in relying on the wife's statement without considering the 4 husband's pleadings and evidence, further wife left his house without sufficient reason and despite his efforts to bring her back, she refused to return. He further submits that applicant is a laborer earning Rs.150 per day, which is supported by the testimony of witnesses Umashankar, Ganesh Singh, and Hari Singh. The Family Court should not have believed the wife's witnesses, Laxmichand and Ramcharan. He also submits that the applicant does not have a provision and stationery shop, land, or a job at Maruti Plant earning Rs.14,000 per month, as claimed by the wife, further she failed to provide any documentary evidence to support her claims about applicant’s income and did not examine any witnesses from his employer to prove his employment. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set- asdie. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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 pay Rs.2,000/- per 5 month to each of the respondents towards maintenance observing that the respondent did not produce any income certificate or other documents to prove that the applicant earns Rs.14,000 per month by working in a plant. Therefore, in the absence of documents, it is not proven that the applicant earns Rs.14,000 per month from the plant. Similarly, the respondent and her witnesses stated that the applicant has 7-8 acres of agricultural land in Village Mohanpur, but the respondent did not produce any revenue documents to prove this. However, the applicant’s witnesses, Hari Singh and Ganesh Singh, admitted that the applicant has 6-7 acres of agricultural land, which corroborates the respondent’s statement. This proves that the applicant has agricultural land and earns income from it. The respondent and her witnesses also stated that the applicant has a grocery store and a haberdashery shop in the village, from which he earns Rs.20,000 per month. The applicant’s witness, Hari Singh, admitted in his cross-examination that the applicant has a haberdashery and grocery shop in the village. This proves that the applicant has a haberdashery and grocery shop and earns income from it. Although the exact income from the agricultural land and the grocery shop is not proven due to lack of documents, it can be presumed that the applicant earns Rs.5,000 per month from the agricultural land and Rs.10,000-12,000 per month from the grocery shop. Therefore, applicant is financially capable of paying maintenance to the respondents. Since the respondents 6 are living separately from the applicant due to sufficient reasons and the applicant is not providing maintenance to them, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. 8. 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil