1 2025:CGHC:49612 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1214 of 2025 1. Manjulata Dhangar W/o Shri Dilip Dhangar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kutelikala, P.S. Chhuikhadan, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G., Present Address- Village Damri, P.S. And Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G. 2. Minor Parth Dhangar S/o Shri Dilip Dhangar Aged About 09 years through Natural Guardian/Mother Applicant No. 1, R/o Village Kutelikala, P.S. Chhuikhadan, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G., Present Address- Village Damri, P.S. And Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G. 3. Minor Ku. Lavanya Dhangar D/o Shri Dilip Dhangar Aged About 4 Years And 5 Months, Through Natural Guardian / Mother Applicant No. 1, R/o Village Kutelikala, P.S. Chhuikhadan, Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, C.G., Present Address-Village Damri, P.S. And Tehsil Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Shri Dilip Dhangar S/o Shri Umendi Ram Dhangar Aged About 37 Years Occupation Agriculturist / Haler Mill Operator, R/o Village Kutelikala, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.07 11:23:47 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to modify/set-aside the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Circuit Court at Khairagarh of Family Court Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 05/2023 and allow the application of the applicants under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, in the ends of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicants herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her minor children against the respondent/husband. It was stated in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicants that in April 2014, the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu customs in Village Damri. From the said wedlock, two children were born, i.e., applicants No. 2 and 3. The applicants No. 2 and 3 reside along with their natural guardian, i.e., their mother/applicant No. 1, in her parental house. Thereafter, the respondent, along with his parents, began subjecting applicant No. 1 to physical and verbal cruelty. They repeatedly assaulted and abused her, 3 demanding money from her parents and pressuring her to procure a partition of her father’s agricultural land. The respondent and his family also taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. At the time of marriage, the parents of applicant No. 1 gave the respondent various dowry articles, including a Hero Honda Deluxe Motorcycle, Cooler, Refrigerator, Television, Gas Cylinder, Sewing Machine, Iron Cupboard, Bed, Sofa Set, Dressing Table, Mixer, Utensils, and a Gold Ring. Despite these gifts, the respondent’s family repeatedly harassed applicant No. 1, demanding additional money and insisting on the partition of her father’s agricultural land. Thereafter, in April 2022, the respondent lodged a false complaint against applicant No. 1 at Police Station Chhuikhadan. Pursuant to a notice from the Women’s Cell, Rajnandgaon, applicant No. 1 appeared there along with her father. The respondent failed to appear on two earlier dates and appeared only on the third date of hearing, where counseling was held and a written compromise was recorded on 28.06.2022. After staying briefly at her parental house, applicant No. 1 was later taken back to Village Kutelikala. On 11.10.2022, the respondent, along with his parents and relatives, assaulted applicant No. 1 with a stick, abused her, and threatened her with dire consequences if she failed to bring money from her parental home. On the same day, applicant No. 1 lodged a written complaint at Police Station Chhuikhadan, and thereafter she was medically examined at the Government Hospital, Chhuikhadan. Applicant No. 1 has since been compelled to reside at her parental home along with her two minor children due to persistent cruelty, harassment, and threats to her life at her matrimonial home. The respondent owns about 15 acres of irrigated agricultural land yielding crops worth approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- per annum and also runs a Haler Mill earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. 4 Applicant No. 1 requires Rs. 10,000/- per month for her own maintenance, while each child requires Rs. 5,000/- per month towards food, clothing, education, and medical needs. 4. The respondent filed his reply, denied all allegations, and contended that applicant No. 1 herself behaved cruelly, frequently quarreled, abused, and assaulted her mother-in-law, and even lodged false complaints. He further alleged that applicant No. 1 used to say that she was an educated lady and wanted to work. It was also stated that applicant No. 1 once chased her mother-in-law with a sickle, threatened suicide, and levelled false allegations of an illicit relationship with his sister. A criminal case under Sections 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC was also registered against applicant No. 1. The husband also stated that he took Applicant No. 1 to Durg to reside separately and started working in a shop where he was assaulted twice. It was further contended that applicant No. 1 used to say that she would be happy only when her mother-in-law and sister-in-law died. It was claimed that applicant No. 1 persistently harassed her husband and his family by threatening them with dire consequences. Despite the intervention of villagers and the partition of the house, applicant No. 1 continued to misbehave and ultimately left the matrimonial home. The respondent pleaded that he is unemployed and has no stable source of income; hence, he prayed for dismissal of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. During the trial, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Applicants examined Applicant No. 1 as AW-1 and Domar Ram Sahu as AW-2 to support allegations of harassment and the income of the respondent, while the respondent examined himself as NAW-1, Ramnath as NAW-2, and Ramvilas as NAW-3, who denied the 5 allegations of cruelty and deposed regarding the quarrelsome conduct of Applicant No. 1. The respondent also produced various documentary pieces of evidence in support of his case. 6. Vide impugned order dated 09.07.2025, the learned Family Court, upon appreciating the evidence, held that the applicants failed to prove persistent cruelty or sufficient grounds to live separately. It was further held that the respondent did not possess the financial means as claimed by the applicants. Nevertheless, considering the prevailing high cost of living and the medical expenses of the applicants, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- each for applicants No. 2 and 3, thereby directing the respondent to pay a total of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month to Applicants No. 2 and 3 from the date of the order. However, the claim of Applicant No. 1 for the grant of maintenance was rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court erred both in law and on facts in holding that the applicants failed to prove cruelty and sufficient cause to reside separately. The consistent testimony of applicant No. 1 and the supporting witnesses was brushed aside without proper consideration. He submits that learned Family Court failed to give due weight to the written complaint dated 11.10.2022, the FIR lodged at Police Station Chhuikhadan, and the medical examination report, all of which clearly establish the incident of assault upon applicant No. 1. Learned Family Court erred in concluding that the respondent has no sufficient means. The evidence on record regarding his 15 acres of irrigated agricultural land, Haler Mill, and other sources of income was ignored. Even if unemployed, a person is legally bound to maintain his 6 wife and children. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to apply the settled principle of law that the term “means” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not confined to actual income but extends to the capacity and potential to earn. He further submits that learned Court erroneously relied upon the self-serving allegations of the respondent regarding the alleged quarrelsome behavior of applicant No. 1, while ignoring the fact that no independent or reliable witness supported such allegations. He also submits that the grant of Rs. 1,500/- per child per month, totaling Rs. 3,000/-, is grossly inadequate and illusory in view of the prevailing cost of living, inflation, educational requirements, medical expenses, and nutritional needs of two growing children. The learned Court failed to appreciate that applicants No. 2 and 3, being minor children, are entitled to maintenance irrespective of any dispute between the husband and wife. He submits that learned Family Court committed a grave illegality in rejecting the claim of applicant No. 1/wife for the grant of maintenance. The impugned order suffers from misreading of evidence, non- consideration of material facts, and perversity, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and granted Rs. 1500/- each to applicant Nos. 2 and 3, while rejecting the application of applicant No. 1 for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC on the ground that she failed to prove persistent cruelty or sufficient grounds to live separately. 7 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek