1 2025:CGHC:50717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 8 of 2025 Kunal Anand S/o Late Yugal Kishore Prasad Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Office At Chief Security Officer C.C.L. Darbhanga House Ranchi Near Governor House Tehsil And District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) - 834029 (Applicant) ... Applicant(s) versus 1. Smt. Shweta Singh W/o Kunal Anand Aged About 28 Years R/o Tower Mohalla Bajrang Chowk Dipak Tehsil Katghora District - Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Juvenile Abhijay Anand S/o Kunal Anand Aged About 3 Years Through His Legal Guardian Smt. Shweta Singh W/o Kunal Anand Age About 27 Years (Now 28years ) R/o Tower Mohalla Bajrang Chowk Dipak Tehsil Katghora District - Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bhaktiyar, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.10.2025 1. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “1.The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the Court below in MJC No. 123/2022 from learned Judge Family Court Camp Court, Katghora, District-Korba, (C.G.) 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.13 18:12:08 +0530 2 aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure A-1). 3. Any other relief this Hon’ble High Court deems fit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 12/12/2015 according to the Hindu Customs and Rights and out of the wedlock one son namely Abhijay Anand (respondent No. 2) was born on 20/01/2019. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance from the applicant. In the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C, it is alleged by the respondent No.1 that few days after the marriage, the applicant and his family members used to misbehave and beat up the respondent No. 01. The respondent No. 01 has informed the applicant and her family members on 22.03.2016 that she had become pregnant, then they forcibly caused her abortion by giving her abortion pills and after that again on 24/04/2016, the applicant and her sister without her consent, has given her an abortion pill. The respondents have further stated that the sister of the applicant used to instigate the applicant to beat her, hang her from the fan and go to jail, whatever happens later they will be sorted out. On 05th May and 06th May, the respondent No. 01 was severely beaten by the applicant and his sister and again on 09/06/2018, after knowing that the respondent No.1 was pregnant for the fourth time, the applicant, on the instigation of his sister, beat her and forced her to undergo an abortion. On 14/06/2018, after being instigated by the applicant and his family members tried to beat up the respondent No. 01, asking her to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- in dowry or else not to come, the aunt of the respondent No.1 at Rachi. She was at her aunt's place in the same clothes and somehow came from there to her parents' house. The respondent No.1 and her 3 family members are in danger to their life and property due to the actions of the applicant. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking monthly maintenance for herself and her minor son. The respondents have also filed the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the husband. 3. The notices were issued to the applicant and the applicant had filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application filed by respondent No. 1. 4. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 31.08.2023, partly allowed the application, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000/- per month to the son, aggregating to Rs. 12,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant challenged the said order before this Hon’ble Court by filing CRR No. 224/2024. During the pendency of that revision, respondent No. 1 moved several applications under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for execution of maintenance arrears for different periods, which were registered as MJC Nos. 123/2022, 104/2023, 133/2023, and 150/2023. 5. Upon considering all these execution applications, the learned Family Court computed arrears of Rs. 6,60,000/- and directed deduction of the amount directly from the salary of the applicant. Aggrieved by the said recovery order, the present revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the financial condition of the applicant, who is working merely as a Security Guard, earning around Rs. 46,000/- basic salary, and after deductions, his take-home amount remains meagre. It is further submitted that the applicant has to maintain his aged family members and a physically disabled sister who is 4 diabetic and requires weekly dialysis. It is further submitted that the applicant is already paying maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, ought to have been set off against the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant also contended that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the wife can recover arrears of maintenance only for the period of one year from the date of application, however, the Family Court has ordered recovery from 16.09.2019, which is beyond the permissible limit. It is further urged that the applicant is burdened with a car loan of Rs. 12,00,000/-, requiring monthly repayment of Rs. 19,000/-, leaving almost nothing for his sustenance. Lastly, it was argued that the order of deduction of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the applicant’s salary would bring his family to starvation and cause grave injustice. Hence, the applicant prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed a well-reasoned order after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence and material placed on record by both the parties. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the fact that the respondent No.1 being the legally wedded wife and respondent No.2 being the minor son of the applicant are entitled to claim maintenance 5 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child who are unable to maintain themselves. The plea taken by the applicant regarding his financial hardship, responsibility towards his family members and medical expenses of his disabled sister has been duly considered by the learned Family Court and it cannot be accepted as a valid ground to absolve him from his statutory liability towards his wife and son. Further, the contention of the applicant that the arrears could not have been ordered beyond one year is also devoid of merit in view of the settled legal position that where the delay in payment of maintenance has been caused due to the non-compliance or deliberate default by the husband, the wife is entitled to recover the arrears of maintenance from the date of the order or such period as determined by the Family Court. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek