1 2025:CGHC:27732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 118 of 2019 Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar @ Mohit Janghel S/o Yogeshwar @ Jageshwar Janghel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Sitadabri, Post Office- Bundeli, Police Station- Chuikhadan, Tahsil- Chuikhadan, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Basanti Bai W/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Mohtara, Police Station- Saja, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yugal Janghel S/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel Aged About 1 Years Minor Represented By Mother Basanti Bai W/o Thekleshwar @ Thekeshwar Janghel, R/o Village- Mohtara, Police Station- Saja, Tahsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the family court act and in exercise thereof call for the records of the case from the Court below, if necessary, and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order dated 01-12-2018 (Annexure-P/1) in M.J.C. No. 103/17 passed by the, Family Court, Bemetara.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the present case pertains to a maintenance dispute under Section 125 Cr.P.C., where the respondents wife and minor child of the applicant filed an application before the Family Court, Bemetara. The applicant and respondent no. 1 were married on 26.04.2015, and respondent no. 2 was born from their wedlock. The wife alleged that she was subjected to dowry-related harassment and physical assault soon after marriage and that on 02.09.2015, someone from the applicant’s family intentionally threw a lamp on her while she was cooking, causing severe burn injuries. She claimed she was treated at a hospital and later went to her maternal home, where the applicant refused to take her back. She also alleged that the applicant, a farmer owning over 10 acres of land, has sufficient income but refused to support her and their child, thus seeking ₹10,000 per month for each respondent. In response, the applicant admitted the marriage and paternity but denied all other allegations, 3 claiming the burn injuries were accidental and that he and his family bore the treatment expenses. He further alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and refused to return despite efforts. He claimed to own only 32 dismil of unirrigated land and lacked sufficient income. After hearing both sides and evaluating the evidence, the Family Court, via order dated 01.12.2018, awarded ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹1,000 to the child. The applicant challenges the order, asserting that the respondent is living separately without valid reason and failed to prove the applicant’s financial capacity or her own entitlement, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. The trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent no. 1 had no justifiable reason to reside separately, especially when the applicant has repeatedly expressed his willingness to resume cohabitation and maintain her. The respondent has not demonstrated any valid cause for desertion, which is a precondition for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the Court failed to properly assess the actual income and financial condition of the applicant before directing payment of maintenance. It was also overlooked that the respondent herself admitted to having received a substantial sum of ₹5,20,000/- from the applicant’s father, and the subsequent dispute over return of the said amount was the actual cause of separation. 4 The learned Court misapplied the legal provisions and ignored the material facts on record, thereby exercising jurisdiction with material irregularity, which warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (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 Family Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance for the wife and minor child, who are legally entitled to maintenance. The wife had specifically alleged cruelty and dowry-related harassment, along with a serious burn incident for which she received treatment. Despite the applicant’s denial of intentional harm, he admitted the injuries and acknowledged that she left the matrimonial home thereafter. His claim that she is living separately without valid reason does not hold weight in light of the injuries sustained and the refusal to take her back. Moreover, the applicant, while claiming to have limited income and land, failed to produce convincing evidence disproving his capacity to maintain his legally wedded wife and child. The Family Court rightly assessed the needs of the dependents and awarded a modest and reasonable sum of ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹1,000 to the child, which reflects a 5 balanced approach based on the welfare principle. The order, therefore, suffers from no legal infirmity and is fully sustainable in law. 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. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan