1 2025:CGHC:40164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 532 of 2023 Vikram @ Sonu Sonkar S/o Poonam Sonkar, Aged About 26 Years Occupation Vegetable Seller, Fishiculture And Business Of Interest, R/o Nahar Naka, Near Muktidham, Police Station, Tahasi And, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Parvati S/o Vikram @ Sonu Sonkar, Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Housewife, D/o Ramadhin Sonkar, R/o Near Sheetla Mandir, Nandi, Police Station Basantpur, Tahsil And, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been 1led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent 1led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized in February 2018. It was alleged that after the marriage, upon residing in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family on account of dowry demands, and that the applicant also physically assaulted her, ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial house. Since then, she has been living separately and has not been provided any 1nancial support by the applicant. The Family Court, proceeding ex parte against the applicant, passed the impugned order directing payment of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance, giving rise to the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.04.2022 is bad in law, arbitrary, and erroneous, as the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted the respondent, who left the matrimonial home of her own accord without any reasonable cause, thereby disentitling her to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court further erred in proceeding ex parte without a<ording the applicant su=cient opportunity to defend, overlooked the fact that he is a less-educated person with no permanent source of income, and failed to consider the evidence on record in its proper 3 perspective. The maintenance awarded is excessive and unjusti1ed, and the order, being perverse and contrary to settled legal principles, deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court, having duly considered the uncontroverted testimony and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly proceeded ex parte against the applicant when he failed to appear despite due notice and opportunity, and correctly found that the respondent, being the legally wedded wife, was subjected to cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial home on account of dowry demands and was ultimately compelled to live separately without any 1nancial support. In light of the applicant’s failure to discharge his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and in consonance with the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice, the Court justly awarded Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent towards her maintenance. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 1nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in1rmity or 4 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan