1 2025:CGHC:60964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1513 of 2025 Nitesh Jain S/o Suresh Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Gaga Mandir Chowk, Mahrapara, Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav Jain W/o Nitesh Jain Aged About 30 Years R/o T.V. Tower Road, In Front Of Hanuman Mandir Gali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Lakshya Jain S/o Nitesh Jain Aged About 5 Years Minor, Represented Through Mother Smt. Laxmi Yadav Jain, R/o T.V. Tower Road, In Front Of Hanuman Mandir Gali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.11.2025 passed by learned Family Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F-162/2022, whereby, 2 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.3,000/- 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 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 07.05.2017. After marriage, respondent No. 1 resided at the applicant’s matrimonial home, where she was allegedly subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family on account of dowry demands. During the subsistence of marriage, respondent No. 2 was born. It was alleged that due to continuous cruelty, respondent No. 1 was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home and is presently residing at her parental house without any source of income, while the applicant has sufficient means but neglected to maintain them. 3. Thereafter, the applicant filed a reply denying all allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, contending that respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, misbehaved with family members, avoided household work, and insisted on living separately from his parents. It was further contended that despite efforts made by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to live in the joint family and, being healthy and living separately without sufficient cause, she is not entitled to maintenance. 3 4. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 11.11.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of application i.e., 02.12.2022, against which the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, arbitrary, perverse and erroneous, and therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has committed a serious error in granting maintenance to the respondents from the date of application i.e. 02.12.2022, without assigning cogent reasons and without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty or dowry harassment. On the contrary, respondent No. 1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, pressurized the applicant to live separately from his parents, and refused to reside in the joint family despite repeated efforts made by the applicant to bring her back. Hence, respondent No. 1, having deserted the applicant without sufficient cause, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. he also submits that the learned Family Court also failed to consider that respondent No. 1 is a healthy and able-bodied lady capable of maintaining herself, and that maintenance under 4 Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a matter of right. Further, the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive and disproportionate to the low income of the applicant, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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.3,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the overall evidence and circumstances on record, from where it is clear that the applicant failed to make any sincere effort to keep the respondent No.1 and the minor child with him or to maintain them. The evidence further establishes that the respondent is not residing separately without reasonable cause. Being the husband and father, the applicant is morally and legally bound to maintain the wife and the minor child. Therefore, considering the prevailing economic conditions, minimum wage standards, and the nature of work of the respondent, grant of monthly maintenance to the applicants is just, fair, and proper. 8. 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil