1 2025:CGHC:58900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1466 of 2025 Amit Kumar Tandon S/o Agamdas Tandon Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chaklakunda, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Naya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi Tandul, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Bamleshwari W/o Amit Kumar Tandon Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chaklakunda, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Gadamor, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Arina Tandon D/o Amit Kumar Tandon Aged About 07 Months, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Bamleshwari W/o Amit Kumar Tandon, R/o Village Chaklakunda, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Gadamor, Tahsil And Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Anamika Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – 2 Bemetara (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.321/2023, whereby, 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant (husband) and non-applicant No.1 (wife) was solemnized on 23.03.2022 as per social customs, and from this wedlock one child, non-applicant No.2, was born. The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC alleging that after marriage, the husband and his family members harassed her for inadequate dowry and repeatedly expelled her from the matrimonial house. She stated that on 07.07.2023, the husband finally drove her out, after which she lodged a complaint at Police Station Bemetara. She further claimed that the husband owns 3 acres of land, earning about Rs.2,00,000/- per year, and also works as a driver in a private company earning Rs.17,000/- per month. She sought Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance (Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.5,000/- for the child). The husband filed his reply denying all allegations of dowry demand and asserted that it was the wife who used to trouble him over trivial issues. The husband also contended that before passing the order, the Family Court did not provide an opportunity for his witnesses to be examined. 3. After hearing both parties, the Family Court partly allowed the wife’s application and directed the husband to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as 3 maintenance (Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the child). Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned maintenance order dated 18.09.2025 is stated to be illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and therefore liable to be set-aside. The Family Court wrongly granted maintenance despite the fact that the wife is living at her parental home on her own and that the allegations made against the husband are false. She further submits that the husband asserts that the accusations regarding dowry demand and cruelty are baseless and that, in fact, the wife used to create disputes over minor issues. It is further argued that before passing the order, the Family Court failed to provide an opportunity for the husband’s witnesses to be examined, which has caused prejudice to the defence. She also submits that the Family Court did not consider the husband’s willingness to keep his wife and child with him. Hence, the order suffers from procedural irregularity and incorrect appreciation of facts, warranting interference by the revisional court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2, towards maintenance observing that the wife is unable to maintain herself and the minor child, the applicant is 4 capable of earning, and the wife is living separately for sufficient and justified reasons. Since the applicant failed to participate in the proceedings and did not rebut the wife’s evidence, her statements remained unchallenged. Accordingly, the Family Court found the respondents entitled to partial maintenance and passed the impugned order. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil