1 2025:CGHC:47287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 833 of 2021 Himanshu Patel S/o Ramshiya Patel Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Badokhar , Police Station Churhat, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh., District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kumudlata Patel W/o Himanshu Patel Aged About 27 Years Daughter Of Vidhata Patel , Caste Kurmi, Resident Of Bartunga Colony, Quarter No. M/110, Police Station Chirmiri Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinayak Patel S/o Himanshu Patel Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Kumudlata Patel, Caste Kurmi, Resident Of Bartunga Colony, Quarter No. M/110, Police Station Chirmiri Tahsil Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh, presided by Smt. Vinita Varnar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 131/2019 or granted maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was solemnized marriage with the non-applicant No. 1 on 15.12.2013 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals Custom and on their wedlock, the Non- applicant No. 2 was born and after few day of marriage, the applicant and his family member has harassed and tortured the Non-applicant No. 1 with cruelty due to less than dowry whereas her parents have given two lakhs cash and golden, silver and other domestic articles to the applicant, despite of that, they have demanded cash amount Rs. 5,00,000/- and jewellery from the Non- applicant No.1 and also using =lthy language and in this regard, the Non-applicant No. 1 informed to her parents, then her parents carried to her daughter/Non-applicant No.1 at village Bartunga, Chirmiri since then, the Non-applicant No. 1 with Non-applicant No. 2 are residing at her parental house village Bartunga, Chirmiri District Korea Chhattisgarh and due to =nancial hardships she unable to maintain herself and child. She further alleged that the applicant is working as Labour from which, he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month and he has also having agriculture land, wherein, he has also obtained Rs. 2-3,00,000/- annually income, and Non-applicant No. 1 has no any source of income, hence the Non-applicants have 3 =led an application for seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and her minor child. 3. After receiving the notice to the applicant, the applicant has =led written statement and it is stated that the Non-applicant No. 1 has left from her matrimonial house on own will without any reasons and her father is working as Forman in the SECL Chirmiri and obtained 70-80,000/- as salary per month and her parents and brother wants to do divorce of marriage between applicant and Non-applicant No. 1 and the applicant is unemployed person and he has no any source of income, hence the Non-applicant No.1 can be managed to maintain herself to livelihood herself therefore, prayed that the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 17.02.2021, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 2500/-) from the date of =ling of application. Hence this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents brought on record. It is submitted that Non-applicant No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any su@cient reason, and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The parents of Non-applicant No.1 were themselves insisting upon 4 a divorce between the parties, and it is under their pressure that the application for maintenance was =led. It is further submitted that the father of Non-applicant No.1 is working as a foreman in SECL Colliery, Chirmiri, District Korea, earning about ₹70,000–80,000 per month, and thus the Non-applicants are =nancially well supported by her parents. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the Non- applicant No.1 was peacefully residing with the applicant as his wife without any complaint, but subsequently, her father lodged a false complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chirmiri, alleging that the applicant had assaulted her and wrongfully con=ned her, whereas she herself never made any such statement or complaint. It is further urged that the Non-applicant No.1, under parental inDuence, have =led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only with the intention to harass the applicant, despite the fact that the applicant has always made eEorts to bring Non-applicant No.1 back to the matrimonial home and live peacefully with her, but she has consistently refused to cohabit with him. The allegations of cruelty, assault, or use of =lthy language are false and baseless, as the applicant has never misbehaved with her and, in fact, even bore expenses during her treatment and delivery. Despite this, the Family Court ignored the evidence and erroneously awarded maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant is unemployed, without any stable source of income, and is himself living in poor =nancial condition, whereas the Non-applicant No.1 has not proved the income of the applicant. In such circumstances, the grant of 5 ₹2,500/- per month as maintenance is excessive, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside or at least reduced. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the non- applicants had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant. Upon hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 17.02.2021, held that the Non-applicant No.1 is residing separately from the applicant with sufficient cause. Accordingly, the learned Court directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the Non-applicant No.1 (wife) and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.2 (son), i.e., a total sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance. It was further directed that the said order shall be effective from 07.11.2019, being the date of filing of the application. Thus, considering the social and economic status of both parties, their earning capacity, the number of dependents, and the reasonable needs of the non-applicants, the maintenance so awarded by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be either arbitrary or on the higher side. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the =ndings recorded by the learned Family Court concerned, I do not =nd any illegality or in=rmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference 6 is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. O@ce is directed to send a certi=ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal