1 2025:CGHC:45842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1604 of 2019 Dilip Kumar Miri S/o Shri Rajendra Miri Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Sirsa, Post Office Deorbija, Police Station - Bemetara, District – Bemetara. ... Applicant versus Anusuiya Miri W/o Dilip Kumar Miri, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Sirsa, Police Station - Bemetara, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh, Presently Residing At - Village - Kura, Police Station - Dharsiwa, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Puranchand, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.595/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent from order 2 date i.e. on 18.03.2019. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2015 according to Hindu rites and customs at Village Kura, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur. It was alleged before the learned Family Court that, after a few days of marriage, the applicant started demanding dowry from the respondent and further abused and assaulted her when the demands were not fulfilled. It was also alleged that the applicant once attempted to kill the respondent (wife) by locking her in a closed room. It was further pleaded that the applicant is a Panthi artist and singer, and is also employed with Nehru Yuva Kendra, earning approximately Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant submitted his detailed reply before the Family Court, denying all allegations made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and in the interim maintenance application. He specifically denied ever demanding dowry and stated that the respondent was living peacefully in her matrimonial home. It was only later that she began to create disputes over trivial matters. It was also submitted that the respondent was engaged in selling onions and potatoes and had her own source of income. 5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the respondent’s application and, vide order dated 18.03.2019 passed in MJC No. 595/2017, directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.10 11:41:11 +0530 3 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant is filing the present revision petition on the grounds that the learned Family Court failed to properly consider the applicant’s arguments and evidence, and passed the order solely based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by the respondent. Hence, this revision is being preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the maintenance granted vide order dated 18.03.2019 is excessive and disproportionate, and therefore, liable to be reduced, considering the financial status of the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent (wife) is engaged in the business of selling onions and potatoes, and the applicant (husband) is currently unemployed and has no stable source of income. Therefore, the maintenance amount awarded is liable to be cancelled or suitably reduced by this Court. Copies of documents indicating that the applicant has no sufficient source of income, as falsely claimed in the respondent’s application, are filed herewith as Annexure A/4 (Colly.). In view of the grounds mentioned above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law, contrary to facts, and deserves to be set aside or modified in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the 4 statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned within a period of 48 hours for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti