1 2025:CGHC:56778 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1409 of 2025 Ajay Issar S/o Babu Narayan Issar, Aged About 39 Years R/o Bardebhata, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Jyoti Issar W/o Ajay Issar, Aged About 38 Years R/o Raipur Naka, Gandhi Ward, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Chanchal Issar D/o Ajay Issar Aged About 18 Years R/o Raipur Naka, Gandhi Ward, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21 /11/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 05 days in filing the instant criminal revision. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. The criminal revision is heard finally. 3. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.80/2021, 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.10,000/- per month to respondent No.2 (child), towards maintenance. 4. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 were married in 2001 and a daughter respondent No.2 was born from the wedlock. After the birth of the daughter, the applicant started physically and mentally harassing respondent No. 1 for giving birth to a girl child, due to which she began residing at her parental home in Kondagaon along with her daughter. Despite several attempts by her relatives to reconcile, the applicant’s behaviour did not improve. In 2003, while they were residing at Bardebhata, Kanker, the applicant allegedly beat the respondents and forced them out of the house, putting them on a bus. In 2004, when they were living separately in a rented house, the applicant allegedly instigated respondent No. 1 to engage in prostitution, forcing her to again return to her parental home. Although the applicant was earlier paying Rs.2,000/- per month, during the Covid-19 period he refused to provide money for 3 maintenance and education and instead assaulted and threatened them. It is further alleged that the applicant contracted a second marriage with one Sonia Devi without divorcing respondent No. 1 and has two children from the said relationship. The Learned Family Court, Kondagaon, by order dated 31.07.2025, partly allowed the application of respondent No. 2 and directed the applicant to pay Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance, hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has awarded only a meagre amount as interim maintenance, which is insufficient to meet the applicant’s daily needs and financial obligations. The applicant has never subjected the respondent to any cruelty or harassment for giving birth to a daughter, and the allegations made are false and baseless. Rather, the respondent repeatedly left the matrimonial home on her own, insisted that the applicant live with her at her parental house in Kondagaon, and frequently stayed there for long periods, returning to the applicant only occasionally for short durations. She voluntarily left the applicant’s house on 24.04.2003 and never returned without any justified reason. He further submits that the applicant, despite having his own house in Kanker, was compelled to take a rented accommodation due to the respondent’s continuous refusal to live with his family or perform household responsibilities. The allegation that the applicant instigated her into prostitution is entirely fabricated and has been made only to create a ground for claiming maintenance. Due to her excessive attachment to her parental home, the respondent has never discharged her marital obligations 4 and has lived independently since the early years of marriage. The repeated reference to “cohabitation” in her application reflects her intention to misuse legal proceedings for monetary gain. He also submits that the applicant does not own any business, his LIC agency was terminated long ago and he has no stable income. His only asset is a Maruti Swift Dzire car under a loan with an EMI of Rs.16,266/-. He is responsible for the care of his paralyzed mother, and he himself suffers from paralysis and heart disease. He also bears the expenses of his second wife and two children, and with no permanent source of income, he is incapable of paying a fixed amount monthly. The respondent has been living separately for the last twenty years, has never been financially dependent on the applicant, and claims to be “supporting herself” despite having no known source of income. This clearly shows she is concealing her earnings and has filed the present application only to harass the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. 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.10,000/- 5 per month to respondent No.2 (child), towards maintenance observing that respondent No. 1 failed to prove any sufficient reason for living separately and therefore rejected her claim. However, the Court held that respondent No. 2 is unable to maintain herself and that the applicant has deliberately neglected her. Considering the applicant’s financial capacity, responsibilities, and the applicable provisions of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court determined applicant’s safe monthly income to be around Rs.50,000/- and held that respondent No. 2 is entitled to Rs.10,000/- per month monthly maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil