1 2025:CGHC:34636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 42 of 2020 Jhumman Tandon S/o Shri Rekha Lal Tandon Aged About 23 Years Profession Farmer, R/o Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Ranu Tandon W/o Shri Jhumman Tandon Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Mudpar, Tahsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kavya Tanodn (Minor) D/o Shri Shri Jhumman Tandon Aged About 1 Years Aged 5 Months, Natural Guardian, R/o Village Mudpar, Tahsil Navagarh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manas Vajpai holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.132/2019, whereby, the 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is a person of alcoholic nature. For about two months after the marriage, the applicant treated the respondent well, but thereafter, he started harassing and abusing her with filthy language, threatening her and her family members with dire consequences, including death. He prohibited the respondent from talking to her parents over the phone and attending family functions. He also threatened to kill her if she reported him to her parents, family, or the police. On 15.03.2019, the applicant physically abused the respondent, abused her with foul language and threw her and their child out of the house. A report was lodged at the Dhari Police Station, but no action was taken due to the matter being a family dispute. The respondent also approached the Sakhi Center, where the applicant refused to take her back. There is another pending criminal case against the applicant in Court, the outcome of which is still pending, and the respondent’s side was not informed about this before the marriage. In 2017, the applicant forcibly obtained the respondent’s ATM and withdrew Rs.20,000/-, which he spent on alcohol and gambling. In May 2018, he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from Ishwar Kurre and Rs.50,000/- from Kritika for tractor expenses but has 3 not repaid them. Due to the applicant's cruel behavior and physical abuse, it is difficult for the respondent and their child to live with him. The respondents have no source of income, while the applicant's family owns approximately 30 acres of agricultural land in village Jhajhari, a tractor, and shares in property, generating an annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the applicant has sufficient means to provide maintenance. The respondent requests that the applicant be directed to pay Rs.5,000 each for the respondent and their child, totaling Rs.10,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Judge erred in concluding that there were sufficient reasons for separation for respondent No. 1 without analyzing the depositions of both sides and relying solely on the interested witnesses of the respondent's side. This conclusion appears to be without proper application of mind and lacks supporting reasons based on the record, rendering the order unreasoned. He further submits that the learned Judge also erred in concluding that the revisionist has sufficient resources to pay alimony without properly assessing his financial situation. Instead, the Court relied on the property 4 mentioned by respondent No. 1 and fixed a higher maintenance amount without due consideration. The Judge also arbitrarily discarded the depositions of the revisionist's side, including the testimony of the village Sarpanch, a neutral witness, without providing any valid reasons. 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 the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of applicant and respondent No.2 is his daughter. Furthermore, it is not evident that the applicant is residing at her parental home without any valid reason. Instead, it is apparent that the applicant is living separately due to the non- applicant's behavior, including verbal abuse, threats, and physical abuse, stemming from a dispute over borrowed money, which constitutes sufficient cause for her to live apart. Moreover, the applicant is found to be a healthy person, and with his grandfather owning around 5.960 hectares of ancestral land, in which the applicant has a vested interest, it is evident that he possesses sufficient financial resources. After considering the parties' social 5 and economic status, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned. 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 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