1 2025:CGHC:53345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1318 of 2025 Rajkumar Patel S/o Late Ramnarayan Patel Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Raliya, Near Gevra, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Geeta Patel W/o Rajkumar Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Akhrapali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh 2. Kumari Sonam Patel D/o Rajkumar Patel Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Geeta Patel, R/o Village Akhrapali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh 3. Suraj Patel S/o Rajkumar Patel Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Guardian Mother Geeta Patel, R/o Village Akhrapali, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.31 18:45:40 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed in M.J.C. No. 173/2021, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking maintenance against the applicant, praying for Rs. 50,000/- per month each for herself and her children as maintenance. As per the application filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Family Court, she stated that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized in the year 2013 as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born. After the marriage, the behaviour of the applicant towards respondent No. 1 was good initially; however, after some time, the applicant started quarrelling with her, consuming alcohol, abusing, and assaulting her. As per the averments made by respondent No. 1 in her application, the applicant demanded dowry and a motorcycle from her, and when she failed to fulfil the said demand, the applicant started subjecting her to cruelty by beating, abusing her in filthy language, and mentally as well as physically torturing her. It was further stated by respondent No. 1 that in March 2021, when she was suffering from medical issues, the applicant neither provided her medical treatment nor took care of her. Thereafter, the applicant drove respondent No. 1 along with their children, i.e., respondents No. 2 and 3, out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, which was registered as M.J.C. No. 173/2021, seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month each from the applicant. 5. Subsequently, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application 3 filed by respondent No. 1 and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3, totaling Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and contrary to the settled principles of law. He submits that as per the application filed by respondent No. 1, she has falsely alleged that the applicant owns eight shops and earns Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 lakhs per month. The said averments are false and fabricated. In reality, the applicant owns only a small general store dealing in daily necessities, and his monthly income is merely Rs. 10,000/-. The allegations made by respondent No. 1 regarding the demand of a motorcycle and dowry are false, baseless, and concocted. The applicant has never made any such demand. He further submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant belongs to a labour class, is presently jobless, and also has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents. Before deciding the application, the learned Family Court did not consider the fact that the property and shop earlier owned by the applicant had already been sold by him. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is still willing to reside with respondent No. 1 and maintain her, but it is respondent No. 1 who has voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any just or reasonable cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that it was respondent No. 1 who ousted the applicant from the matrimonial house and she has made no efforts to resume cohabitation or reconcile with the applicant. Learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant, which is against the principles of natural justice. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek