1 2025:CGHC:57319 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 310 of 2022 Shobharam Patel S/o Ishwar Patel Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village-Dongariya, Post - Ranveerpur, Tahsil- Lohara, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus 1. Anju Patel W/o Shobharam Patel Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village- Dongariya At Present Village- Danganiya, Police Station and Tahsil- Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2. Ku. Princy Patel D/o Shobharam Patel Aged About 9 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Anju Patel Wife Of Shobharam Patel Resident Of Village- Dongariya At Present Village- Danganiya, Police Station And Tahsil- Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C. No. 113/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, Rs. 3,000/- PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.27 11:03:21 +0530 2 per month to respondent No.2. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of respondent No.1 with the applicant was solemnized on 14.02.2009, and respondent No.2 was born from the said wedlock. On the basis of a complaint made by respondent No.1 before the Women’s Cell, counselling was conducted and thereafter an offence under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC was registered against the applicant. After conclusion of the criminal case, the applicant and the respondents resumed cohabitation, and at present the respondents are residing in the matrimonial home of respondent No.1. The respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating that after some time of marriage, the applicant subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty for demand of dowry and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home. Consequently, she returned to her parental house and lodged a complaint, on which an offence under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC was registered against the applicant and his family members. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. During pendency of the criminal case, the parties entered into a compromise, and on its basis, the applicant and his family members were acquitted. They again began living together; however, the applicant again subjected her to cruelty and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been living with respondent No.2 at her parental house. It was further stated that the applicant owns agricultural land, a house, and a tractor, and earns sufficient income, yet he has neglected to maintain the respondents. 3. After service of notice, the applicant filed reply denying all allegations except the admitted facts. He submitted that he never subjected the respondents to cruelty or made any dowry demands, and that respondent No.1 is a short-tempered lady who used to misbehave with him and his 3 parents and was unwilling to fulfil matrimonial obligations. He further contended that she left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and that she is engaged in stitching and tailoring work and capable of maintaining herself; hence, the application for maintenance was liable to be dismissed. After hearing both parties, vide impugned order dated 23.10.2021, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 23.10.2021 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never subjected the respondents to cruelty or made any dowry demand. In fact, respondent No.1 is of a fickle temperament and used to misbehave with and defame the applicant and his parents, and even assaulted the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home and is living separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Respondent No.1 has specifically admitted that any amount received by her as maintenance from the applicant would be given to her father, clearly showing that she does not require the amount for her own maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, particularly Ex. P-1, which establishes that the applicant owns only 0.6480 hectare of agricultural land. The learned Family Court ignored the fact admitted by respondent No.1 in paragraph 15 of her evidence that the applicant is responsible for maintaining his aged parents and his sister. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the father of respondent No.1 owns more than 20 acres of agricultural land. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate 4 that the applicant made several efforts to bring the respondents back to the matrimonial home, but respondent No.1 refused to reside with the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 has sufficient independent income and is capable of maintaining herself, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. The respondent No.1 is living separately without any justifiable reason, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 had earlier prosecuted the applicant and his family members in a false case under Sections 498-A and 34 IPC, in which they were all acquitted. It is well-settled that the benefit of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and even otherwise, the maintenance awarded is excessive and disproportionate, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara, (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C. No. 113/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent No.1, Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.2. and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 5 learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal 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 Preeti