1 2025:CGHC:29194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1558 of 2019 Jalam Chand Jain S/o Goutam Chand Ji Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bijora, Post Badgaon , P.S. and Tahsil Doundi Lohara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Deepshikha Jain W/o Jalam Chand Jain Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Girdhari Nagar , Durg Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh., 2. Ku. Yashika Jain D/o Jalam Jain Aged About 9 Month, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Deepshikha Jain, Resident of Girdhari Nagar , Durg Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.25/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 11:03:07 +0530 2 under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent No.1/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.2/daughter. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 10.05.2015 according to Hindu Custom and Ritual at Durg and out of their wedlock respondent No. 2 was born and after that, the applicant has not take care of the respondents and he has harassed and tortured due to less dowry. The application was based on the ground that after the marriage, the applicant has committed marpeet and given the cruel treatment to the respondent in the name of demanding the dowry and expel out her from his house. It is further contended that she has no any source of income to maintain herself and the applicant is businessman and earns Rs. 30,000-35,000/- per month, hence the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and grant maintenance amount Rs. 30,000/- against the applicant. The applicant filed the reply of the application and denied the contention of the application and specially stated that from the date of marriage, the respondent dislike the applicant and she is not ready to reside with him, it is further contended that the respondent on own motion left the house, therefore, as per the provision of under section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. she is not entitled to get maintenance amount from the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence. The respondent on own motion left the house of the applicant, therefore she is not able to get the benefit of maintenance under the provision of section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. The respondent has not able to prove the income of applicant, therefore, 3 maintenance awarded Rs. 3,000/- is liable to be set-aside. The maintenance amount is higher side and is liable to be modified. Looking to the entire material fact and law, the order passed by the learned family Court is in arbitrary manner and is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that she is living separately from the respondent/applicant without any reasonable reason, in such circumstances, the applicant No.1/wife is not entitled to received maintenance amount from her husband/respondent, however, applicant No.2 is daughter of the respondent, in such circumstance, on the basis of legal and moral responsibility of the father, the respondent is responsible to maintain his children. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti