1 2025:CGHC:4508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 113 of 2025 Harishchand Banjare S/o Shri Bisambhar Lal Banjare Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mohbhaththa, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Dhaneshwari Banjare W/o Harishchand Banjare Aged About 31 Years R/o C/o. Rajaram Patil Village Champa, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Manendra Banjare S/o Harishchand Banjare Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dhaneshwari Banjare R/o C/o. Rajaram Patil Village Champa, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Ku. Yashu Banjare S/o Harishchand Banjare Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Dhaneshwari Banjare R/o C/o. Rajaram Patil Village Champa, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the court of learned Second Additional Principle Judge Family Court Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal M.C.C. no. 920/2023. 2. The case in nutshell is that the present applicant got married to respondent no. 1 on 13.05.2013 as per Hindu rituals and 2 customs. During the said wedlock two children were born. After five years of marriage present applicant started torturing her physically and mentally on the pretext of dowry. The applicant is an alcoholic addict. The applicant in the year 2021 left the respondents and went to Raipur. It is alleged that he is residing with some other woman there. Thereafter, the respondent no. 1 started living with his parents along with her children. Both the children are school going and father of the respondent no. 1 is an old age man who is unable to take proper care of the respondents and is financially not so sound enough. On this the respondent no. 1 filed an application for maintenance. 3. On appreciation of the material/evidence available, learned family Court has allowed the maintenance application of the respondents and directed the present applicant/husband to pay sum of Rs. 3000/- to respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent no. 2 and 3 as maintenance. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. He stated that the monthly income of the applicant is only Rs. 12,000/- . Moreover the respondent no. 1 did not produced any document with regard to income of the applicant and the applicant is not having any agricultural land in his name and his old parents are dependent upon him. The respondent no. 1 without any sufficient reason left the house of the applicant and is herself living separately. Hence he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 or reduce the maintenance allowed by the concerned Family court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused impugned order paassed by the concerned Family courts with utmost circumspection. 3 6. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that present applicant is the husband of the respondent no. 1 and they both have two children. It is also clear that the respondents no.1 is living separately with her father and children on the ground that the applicant has left them and was torturing her on the ground of dowry. She has even filed an application under section 125 stating the same. 7. So far as the question of responsibility of the respondents is concerned, it is but obvious that respondent no. 1/wife, respondent no. 2 and 3/children are surely entitled to receive the maintenance, as they are receiving education and are growing children hence they need money in every sphere of their life. 8. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that Learned Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has not committed any grave illegality in allowing the maintenance application of respondents. So far as the possibility of reduction in maintenance is concerned, it is clearly ruled out as the amount of maintenance granted to the respondents cannot said to be on a higher side, hence it is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court. 9. Hence from the above observation(s) made by this court, the instant revisions being devoid of merits is dismissed and is subsequently disposed of. 10. No order as to cost(s). sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza