1 2025:CGHC:32950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 179 of 2022 Dilendra Nandi Kurre S/o Shri Sadhuram Kurre Aged About 36 Years Cast Satnami, Reseident Of Village Nariyara, Thana And Post Hasaud, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Fuleswari W/o Dilendra Nandi Kurre Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ward No. 11 Indra Ward New Ledri, Thana Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.). 2 - Ruchi Kurre D/o Dilendra Nandi Kurre Aged About 5 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Fuleswari W/o Dilendra Nandi Kurre, Resident Of Ward No. 11 Indra Ward New Ledri, Thana Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh District Koria (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “Under the facts and circumstances of the case the applicant most humbly prays for the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 following reliefs :- 1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 16/11/2021 (annexure A/1) passed in the Miscellaneous Criminal case No. 129/2019. 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in the favour of the applicant as it may deem to fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the cases.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant. The marriage between the applicant and non-applicant no.1 was solemnized on 23.05.2013 as per Hindu rites, and non-applicant no.2 was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that the applicant neglected the non- applicants and maintained an illicit relationship with another woman, due to which non-applicant no.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 24.09.2015 and reside at her parental house. The applicant denied the allegations in his reply and contended that the non-applicant voluntarily left the house without any sufficient reason, and therefore, he is not liable to pay 3 maintenance. After hearing both parties and evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court, by order dated 16.11.2021 in M.Cr.C. No. 129/2019, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay ₹2,000 per month to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1,000 per month to non-applicant no.2. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition seeking its setting aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, contrary to the evidence on record, and liable to be set aside. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence while passing the impugned order, which suffers from both factual and legal infirmities. The applicant, being a retired army officer with limited income and responsibilities towards his aged parents, is not in a sound financial position to pay the maintenance amount awarded. Furthermore, the allegation of an illicit relationship was not proven, and therefore, non-applicant no.1 had no justifiable reason to leave the matrimonial home, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The findings of the learned Court are perverse and not supported by the material on record, making the impugned order arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Family Court in M.Cr.C. 4 No. 129/2019 appears to be just and proper, based on the facts and evidence presented by both parties. The Family Court rightly appreciated the circumstances wherein non-applicant no.1 was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to the applicant’s neglect and alleged illicit relationship, which, though denied by the applicant, was not sufficiently rebutted. The Court balanced the rights and needs of the non-applicants with the financial capacity of the applicant and awarded a modest maintenance of ₹2,000 per month to non-applicant no.1 and ₹1,000 per month to non-applicant no.2, ensuring basic support without causing undue hardship to the applicant. The order reflects a fair consideration of the legal duty of the husband to maintain his wife and minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. 7. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan