1 2025:CGHC:40165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 529 of 2023 Raj Niyogi S/o Shri Swapan Kumar Niyogi Aged About 43 Years R/o House No. 495, Raji Vihar, Loyela School Road, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, P.S. Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shlok Niyogi (Minor) S/o Raj Niyogi Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rina Niyogi, Address- House Of Gopal Chand Tarafdar, Shyamnagar, Tilda, Tahsil Tilda, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been 5led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur Chhattisgarh, or impugned maintenance order may kindly be RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 reduced/modi/ed or equally pay to minor child Shlok Niyogi, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant married Smt. Rina Niyogi on 30.06.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, a son was born on 12.11.2014. Initially, the couple lived peacefully, however, disputes arose allegedly on account of the Respondent Smt. Rina Niyogi’s government service, leading to her separation from the Applicant. The Respondent Smt. Rina Niyogi, employed as an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Chhatod, Block Tilda, District Raipur, earns over Rs.40,000/- per month and presently resides separately with her mother. The Applicant claims that due to the Respondent Smt. Rina Niyogi’s misconduct, he left his house in Bilaspur and is now working on a private construction job in Indore, with no 5xed income. The Respondent/son 5led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs.28,000/- per month as maintenance. The Applicant did not 5le any reply and proceeded ex parte. The learned Family Court, by order dated 28.06.2022, allowed the application and directed the Applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the Respondent/son, which order is now under challenge in this revision as being illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence on record, having been passed ex parte without a?ording the Applicant an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent Smt. 3 Rina Niyogi, on her own accord and without su@cient cause, left the matrimonial home due to her arrogant and obstinate conduct, despite being employed as an Assistant Teacher under the Chhattisgarh Government and earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month, and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the Applicant, having no 5xed source of income and working on a contractual basis in the private sector at Indore, is not in a 5nancial position to pay the excessive maintenance amount awarded. The order overlooks the Respondent’s independent means of livelihood, absence of any proof regarding the Applicant’s alleged income, and the fact that she has neither made any prior complaint against the Applicant nor shown any intention to resume cohabitation. The quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive, unjusti5ed, and liable to be set aside or suitably modi5ed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in awarding maintenance to the Respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The marriage between the applicant and Smt. Rina Niyogi and the birth of their son being undisputed, coupled with the admitted fact that the Respondent Smt. Rina Niyogi is living separately, justi5ed invocation of the bene5cial provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which are intended to 4 prevent destitution and ensure basic sustenance of a wife unable to maintain herself. The Applicant, despite service of notice, chose not to contest the proceedings and remained ex parte, thereby leaving the Respondent’s pleadings and evidence unrebutted. In the absence of any material to prove the Applicant’s alleged inability to pay, and keeping in view the standard of living to which the Respondent was accustomed during cohabitation, the Family Court’s determination of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 5nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in5rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan