1 2025:CGHC:29558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 325 of 2017 Kriti Kumar Mishra S/o Santosh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhati Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Shail Mishra D/o W/o Kriti Kumar Mishra, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lota Turning, Bagicha, Tahsil And Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Minor Rashi @ Shristi Mishra, D/o Kriti Kumar Mishra, Aged About 8 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shail Mishra, R/o Village Lota Turning, Bagicha, Tahsil And Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Minor Aradhya Mishra, S/o Kriti Kumar Mishra, Aged About 2 Years Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shail Mishra, R/o Village Lota Turning, Bagicha, Tahsil And Police Station Bagicha District Jashpur Chhattisgarh , District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Ms. Jyoti Rathore, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Jyoti Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision petition, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 09/02/2017 passed by the Family Court, Jashpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.68/2016 by which the Family court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicants Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the applicant on the ground that the marriage of the non-applicant No.1 and the applicant was solemnized as per Hindu ritual on 06/05/2006. From their wed lock, the non-applicant No.2 and non- applicant No.3 were born. After three months of marriage, the applicant and the family members of the applicant taunt and harass the non-applicant No.1 in the name of dowry. As a consequence of this there was a meeting on 27/07/2009 in which the family members of the non-applicant No.1, applicant and other persons participated. In the month of September, 2015, the applicant assaulted the non- applicant No.1 and created such a situation for the non-applicant No.1 that the non-applicants are constrained to leave the house of the applicant and come to the paternal house. As the non-applicant No.1 is not doing any work and is not having any sources of income. The applicant is earning Rs.1,00,000/- monthly, therefore, the non- applicants are entitled for Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance. That due to continuous neglect and refusal to provide maintenance, 3 the non-applicants are facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file this present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. The applicant denied the averment made in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and stated that the non-applicant No.1 leave the house of the applicant without any rhyme or reason. The applicant and the family members of the applicant has never demanded dowry from the non-applicant No.1. The father of the non-applicant No.1 came to the house of the applicant and stated that the mother of the non-applicant No.1 is suffering from heart attack and took the non-applicant No. 1. Thereafter, the family members of the non-applicant No.1 denied to send back the non-applicants to the house of the applicant. The applicant has also stated that the applicant is ready and willing to keep the non-applicants along with him and for which application Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed before the Family Court, Ambikapur. 5. The learned Family Court on the basis of the pleading and evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the application of the non- applicants filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and allowed the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the non- applicant No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- each to non-applicant No.2 and 3 per month, hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to see that the applicant is ready and willing to keep the non-applicants and for which the applicant has filed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was allowed 4 by the Family Court, Ambikapur on 06/03/2017 in Civil Suit No.172- A/2015. She further submits that the Family Court failed to see that the non-applicant No.1 is leaving separately from the non-applicant without any rhyme or reason. The judgment of Family Court suffers from non consideration of evidence on record in its right prospective. The judgment of the Family Court is not sustainable in the eye of law because the non-applicant No.1 has willfully leave the company of the applicant and the applicant is ready and willing to keep the non- applicants. The non-applicant No.1 is not entitled to receive an allowance of maintenance from the applicant because without sufficient reason she refuses to live with the non-applicant. Therefore, she prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicants before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court passed the judgment on 09.02.2017, whereby it was observed that the Non-applicant No.1 is living separately from the applicant 5 without any rhyme or reason and after appreciating the same, it has been directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5000/- towards maintenance amount to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/- each to the Non-applicant Nos.2 and 3 because they are minor ( total 9000/- as maintenance) and that order shall be affected from 31.08.2016. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance to the non- applicants, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal