1 2025:CGHC:34969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1275 of 2022 Jaldhar Ram S/o Shri Teju Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Batanidand, P.S. Narayanpur, District - Jashpur, Civil And Revenue, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sukinta Bai W/o Shri Jaldhar Ram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Batanidand, At Present Kudkel, Khajari, P.S. Kansabel, Tah. Kansabel, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Ku. Savita Nayak D/o Shri Jaldhar Ram Aged About 4 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sukinta Bai Wife Of Shri Jaldhar Ram, R/o Village - Batanidand, At Present Kudkel, Khajari, P.S. Kansabel, Tah. Kansabel, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the Misc. Cr. Case.No.88/2021 and after its perusal RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 allow this Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed in the case of (Smt. Sukinta Bai and another Vs Jaldhar Ram) by the Family Court, Jashpur, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Jashpur, seeking maintenance from the applicant-husband, alleging cruelty, desertion, and his illicit relationship with another woman named Neera Bai. The parties were married on 12.05.2016 as per Hindu customs, and a daughter was born on 04.04.2017. The non- applicant alleged that after repeated physical and mental harassment, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, and despite a panchayat settlement and temporary reconciliation, the applicant continued the harassment and began living with another woman. She further claimed that the applicant owns agricultural land, livestock, and earns approximately ₹5,00,000 annually from farming. The non-applicant prayed for ₹10,000 monthly maintenance. The applicant denied all allegations, contending that the non-applicant left without reason, refused to return despite his efforts, and falsely alleged his relationship with Neera Bai, who clarified before the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra that she regards the applicant as a brother. He claimed he owns no land in his name, and the 60 dismal land (0.1380 hectares) belongs to his father. After hearing both parties, the Family Court, Jashpur, by order dated 03.11.2022, awarded ₹5,000 to the non-applicant-wife and ₹2,500 to the minor child as monthly maintenance. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Jashpur is erroneous, perverse, and bad in law, as it fails to properly appreciate the evidence and statements of the applicant and his witnesses. The applicant consistently maintained that the non-applicant No.1 is living separately without any just or sufficient reason, and there is no conclusive proof of cruelty or desertion on his part. Despite repeated efforts by the applicant, including participation in panchayat meetings and counseling sessions where he expressed willingness to keep the non-applicant No.1 and their daughter with him, she refused to return. The Family Court failed to consider these crucial facts. Moreover, the applicant has clarified that he has no relation with the alleged woman and that he earns a meager income as a laborer, with no agricultural land in his name, while also supporting his aged and dependent parents. The court’s conclusion that the applicant is liable to pay maintenance overlooks both the factual and financial limitations placed on him and disregards material oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Jashpur, is just, fair, and based on proper appreciation of facts, evidence, and legal principles. The Court rightly considered the welfare of the non- applicant-wife and the minor child, keeping in mind the husband’s 4 obligation to maintain them under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite the applicant’s denial, the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and neglect made by the wife, along with the failure of reconciliation efforts, justified her living separately. The Court also rightly noted the applicant’s earning capacity and potential sources of income, including agricultural activities, regardless of the land being registered in his father’s name, as the benefit derived from it contributes to his financial capacity. The modest award of ₹5,000 to the wife and ₹2,500 to the minor child ensures basic sustenance and reflects a balanced approach by the Family Court in protecting the rights of the dependents without imposing an excessive burden on the applicant. 7. Considering the submission 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan