1 2025:CGHC:32931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 68 of 2021 Toran Dhiwar S/o Shri Chhabilal Aged About 38 Years Officer Address- Senior Section Engineer (T.M.O.), Track Machine Organization, South East Central Railway (Secr), Raipur, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address- Village- Mopka, Tahsil- Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Lalita Dhiwar W/o Toran Dhiwar Aged About 37 Years R/o Baikunth Railway Colony, Tandwa, Police Station- Nevra, Tahsil- Tilda, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.06.2019 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.575/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that due to the absence of the applicant, ex-parte proceedings were conducted against him on 30.04.2019. The essence of the application is that Smt. Lalita Dhiwar and Shri Toran Dhiwar were married on 06.05.2005 in Raipur according to Hindu rites and customs. They were living together as husband and wife. From their wedlock a son named Gaurav and a daughter named Suman were born. The applicant used to demand dowry and also demanded Rs. 10 lakhs. He subjected the respondent to mental, physical, and social harassment. His behavior became inhumane, and he sexually harassed her. He defamed her character in social gatherings and forcibly obtained her signature on blank papers. The applicant was a habitual drinker, used to abuse and assault her. Due to this harassment, the respondent went to her parental home, and now reconciliation is not possible. The respondent has also stated that she has become physically weak. The applicant has a monthly income of Rs. 30,000 and is a government railway employee. He also owns agricultural land jointly with his family. Therefore, she seeks monthly maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the notice sent to the applicant's residential address was returned unserved, with a remark that it was refused to be accepted. The Family Court then ordered notice to be sent to the applicant's official address, however, the applicant was absent from duty from December 3, 2018, to July 10, 2019, which means he would not have received the notice at his official address during that period. He further submits that the Family Court failed to consider that the applicant has never subjected the respondent to cruelty and the respondent herself left the house of applicant and she is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore she not entitled for grant of maintenance. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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 respondent and directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the respondent’s testimony, which reveals that the applicant is shirking his 4 responsibilities, and she is weak and unable to work. She struggles to make ends meet and supports herself and the children through labor. This testimony remains unshaken. Therefore, the respondent is unable to maintain herself and is not financially capable. She survives through labor. The respondent claims that her husband, the applicant, is a railway employee with a monthly income of Rs.1 lakh and has submitted documents, including income tax documents (Exhibit P-1) and a salary certificate issued by the railway department. According to the salary certificate, the applicant’s net pay in July 2018 was approximately Rs.22,000/- per month. After considering the documents and evidence, the Family Court found that the applicant’s monthly income is not Rs.1 lakh. Based on the evidence, the Family Court granted monthly maintenance to the respondent as mentioned in para No.1. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil