1 2025:CGHC:57312 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 882 of 2022 1 - Smt. Samund Tandon Ratre Caste Satnami R/o Kodabhat, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jangir Champa, Chhattisgharh. Presently R/o At Samund Tandon Ratre Ophthalmic Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Singhoda, Police Station Singhoda, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chattisgarh. 2 - Minor Kumar Divyanka Tandon Ratre D/o Agrasen Ratre Aged About 4 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Samund Tandon Ratre, Caste Satnami R/o Kodabhat, Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Jangir Champa, Chhattisgharh. Presently R/o At Samund Tandon Ratre Ophthalmic Assistant, Primary Health Centre, Singhoda, Police Station Singhoda, Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Agrasen Ratre S/o Ramratan Ratre Aged About 32 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Kodabhat Police Station And Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) At Present Agrasen Ratre, Constable No. 344 Office Superintendent Of Police Rail Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Advocates. 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.11/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, which the Family Court dismissed. The applicant No.1 was married to the respondent on 24.05.2015, and a daughter, Kumari Divyanka Ratre, was born from the marriage. The applicant alleged that despite giving appropriate gifts at the time of marriage, the respondent was dissatisfied and subjected her to continuous mental and physical cruelty, including demands for a bullet motorcycle. On 27.08.2018, the respondent allegedly assaulted her over dowry demands. Consequently, an offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered and is pending. The applicant stated that the respondent is a government employee in G.R.P. and also earns from ancestral land, therefore she claimed monthly maintenance. The respondent denied all allegations. The Family Court framed issues regarding denial and entitlement of maintenance. After evaluating the evidence of both sides, the 3 Family Court dismissed the maintenance claim, leading to the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that providing maintenance to a legally wedded wife and minor child is a pious and statutory obligation of the husband, from which he cannot be discharged under any circumstances. Despite this settled legal position, the Family Court illegally dismissed the entire claim of the applicants and denied maintenance to both the wife (applicant No.1) and the minor daughter (applicant No.2). He further submits that the relative income or earning capacity of the parties cannot be a basis for completely rejecting a claim for maintenance. At best, income disparity may be relevant for determining the appropriate quantum, but it cannot justify denial of maintenance altogether. The applicant was compelled to live separately due to the severe mental and physical cruelty inflicted by the respondent, and the separation is solely for the safety and protection of herself and her minor child. He also submits that the Family Court also erred in holding that the respondent’s alleged lack of present government employment is a valid ground to deny maintenance. The obligation to maintain wife and child exists irrespective of the nature or stability of the husband’s employment, and the respondent’s liability remains unaffected. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 4 and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant, after evaluating the evidence of both parties, held that although the applicant-wife had reasonable grounds to live separately due to the respondent’s second marriage, she failed to prove her inability to maintain herself. The Court observed that the applicant is a government employee earning around Rs.34,000/- per month, while the respondent is unemployed and has no sufficient means. Considering that the minor child is also living with the earning mother, the Court concluded that the applicants are not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and accordingly dismissed the application. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil