1 2025:CGHC:52465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1285 of 2025 Sunil Baghel S/o Rajkumar Baghel Aged About 26 Years R/o Satnami Para, Dhamdha, Tah. Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Leelawati Baghel W/o Sunil Baghel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Girhola, Police Station- Nandini, Tah. And District- Durg, C.G. 2 - Kumari Bhavya Baghel D/o Sunil Baghel Aged About 2 Years Minor Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Leelawati Baghel W/o Sunil Baghel, R/o Village- Girhola, Police Station- Nandini, Tah. And District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr.Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /10/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1395/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming maintenance from the applicant. It was stated that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent No. 2 is their daughter born out of the wedlock solemnized on 28.04.2017 at Village Girhola, District Durg (C.G.) as per Hindu customs. The respondents alleged that after marriage, the applicant and his family harassed her mentally and physically for dowry, and due to constant cruelty, she lodged an FIR under Sections 498A/34 IPC. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental home since 26.09.2019. Upon notice, the applicant denied all allegations, contending that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and refused to return despite several requests. After hearing both parties and perusing the evidence, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹2,000 per month to respondent no. 1 and ₹2,000 per month to respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional 3 Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the applicant’s reply, wherein it was clearly stated that from the beginning, respondent No. 1 had a strong temperament, frequently quarreled, and made false allegations of illicit relations. Despite several attempts by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to return and threatened to implicate the applicant’s family in false cases. The Court also ignored the contradictions in the respondent’s statements and failed to assess the true cause of her leaving the matrimonial home. The finding regarding maintenance was arrived at on presumptions without proper consideration of facts and evidence. The assessment of the applicant’s means was also not properly adjudicated, resulting in an unjust order that deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance, after detailed consideration of the evidence on record, the Family Court 4 concluded that respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the daughter of applicant, which is an admitted fact, furthermore, respondent No. 1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant and his family members, which compelled her to live separately. The Court further held that the respondent No.1 has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is employed as an Assistant at AIIMS, Raipur, earning approximately ₹17,000 per month. Accordingly, the Family Court granted monthly maintenance to the respondents as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil