1 2025:CGHC:38899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 78 of 2023 Sushant Kumar S/o Late Shivpad Rana Aged About 48 Years Occupation - Service In S.E.C.L. On The Post Of Senior Belt Fitter, Place Of Posting Shivani Mines Area Bhatgaon Kalyani Office, R/o Village - Jarhi, Police Station - Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kanika Rana W/o Sushsnt Kumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Jarhi, Police Station- Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village - Patna, Police Station - Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Krish Kumar Rana S/o Sushant Kumar Aged About 16 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Kanika Rana (Non- Applicant No. 1), R/o Village- Jarhi, Police Station- Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village - Patna, Police Station - Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Neyasha D/o Sushant Kumar Aged About 5 Months, Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Kanika Rana (Non- Applicant No. 1), R/o Village- Jarhi, Police Station- Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Pratappur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village - Patna, Police Station - Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishnakant, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.04/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance and as the respondent No.2 is residing with the applicant, his applicant under Section 125 of CrPC is rejected. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, alleging that the applicant (husband) misbehaved with the respondent No. 1 (wife) and refused to maintain her and their two children (respondents No. 2 and 3). The respondents claimed that the applicant works in SECL and earns a monthly salary of Rs. 57,000/- but refuses to provide maintenance. The applicant contested the application, denying allegations and stating that the respondent No. 1 misbehaves with his family members and lives separately without reasonable 3 cause. He claimed to be a labor-class employee of SECL, paying a monthly installment of Rs. 31,00,000/- towards a house loan and having withdrawn advance amounts from his CMPF account. The applicant alleged that respondent No. 1 runs a medical shop and earns a sufficient income. The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 3 but rejected the application for respondent No. 2, holding that he lives with the applicant and is being maintained by him. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial house without reasonable cause and is living in her parental home, so she's not entitled to maintenance. Further, she runs a medical shop and earns an income, making her capable of maintaining herself. He further submits that the applicant took a bank loan to construct a house and is paying monthly installments, which the Family Court failed to consider. He also submits that the applicant made efforts to bring the respondent No. 1 back home, but she refused to return. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 is living separately without reasonable cause, making her ineligible for maintenance. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is liable to be set- aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 5. 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 applicant to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3 towards maintenance and as the respondent No.2 is residing with the applicant, his applicant under Section 125 of CrPC is rejected observing the fact that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No.2 and 3 are their children and from the evidence of respondent No. 1 and the applicant, it is clear that the applicant has no concern for respondent No. 1 and his daughter. He only wants to transfer the land and house at Village Jarhi in his name, and for said reason, he used to quarrel and physically abuse respondent No. 1. As a result, respondent No. 1 is living separately from the applicant along with respondent No. 3, which is a sufficient reason for them to live apart from the applicant and is unable to maintain herself and respondent No.3. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he resides with applicant, therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent No.2 is not entitled for maintenance and respondent Nos.1 and 3 are entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil