1 2025:CGHC:45863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1521 of 2019 Shriram Kurre S/o Shivprasad Aged About 32 Years R/o Kathautiya, Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Anusuiya W/o Shriram Kurre Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Int Bhatthapara, Bhatgaon, Police Station Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ritik Kurre S/o Shriram Kurre Aged About 2 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother And Leger Guardian Smt. Anusuiya, R/o Ward No. 8, Int Bhatthapara, Bhatgaon, Police Station Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. R.V. Rajwade, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2019, in the interest, of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Surajpur (C.G.) seeking maintenance. It was stated that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 07.05.2014, and out of their wedlock, one child, respondent No. 2, was born. It was alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home, compelling her to reside with her minor child at her parental house. It was further alleged that despite having agricultural land and sufficient means, the applicant failed to provide any maintenance. The applicant appeared before the Family Court and denied all allegations, stating that respondent No. 1 could not adjust in the matrimonial home, misbehaved with family members, and voluntarily left the house without any reasonable cause. He further submitted that he earns a meager income from a temporary private job and is unable to pay maintenance. After considering the evidence and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 15.10.2019, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents towards their maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed this revision petition. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 is bad in law, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, despite several efforts made by the applicant to bring her back. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 is a healthy and able- bodied woman having sufficient means to maintain herself, whereas the applicant is engaged in a temporary private job and is already burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents. The Family Court also erred in holding that the applicant is living with another woman, namely Anjali, as husband and wife, without any cogent evidence. Moreover, awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance is excessive and beyond the applicant’s financial capacity. It is argued that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, not to confer an absolute civil right, and the present order has been passed without proper consideration of these aspects. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District- Surajpur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the pleadings and testimonies of both parties before passing the impugned order. It has been duly established that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 07.05.2014, and out of their wedlock, a minor child, respondent No. 2, was born. The evidence clearly shows that after some time of marriage, respondent No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of dowry demands, and she was eventually ousted from the matrimonial home, compelling her to take shelter at her parental house along with her minor child. The applicant failed to produce any convincing evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily or without reasonable cause. Further, it was established that the applicant, despite having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the respondents. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court rightly held that respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself and the minor child, and the applicant, being legally bound, is liable to provide maintenance. Hence, the direction to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month towards their maintenance is just, proper, and based on sound reasoning. 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 5 this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan