1 2025:CGHC:29526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 168 of 2018 Dhannu S/o Bhuneshwar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Rampur, Ghurarapara, P. S. And Post Chalgali, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Seema W/o Shri Dhannu Aged About 34 Years Caste Cherva, R/o West Chirmiri, Colliery Gaddha Dafai, Ward No. 03, Post And P. S. Pondi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Gouri Dhannu Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Seema ( Respondent No. 1 ), Caste Cherva, R/o West Chirmiri, Colliery Gaddha Dafai, Ward No. 03, Post And P. S. Pondi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 25-08-2017 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants (wife and minor child) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Baikunthpur, seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 20.04.2001 and that non-applicant No.2 (the child) was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after marriage, the wife was subjected to dowry-related harassment and was ultimately driven out of the matrimonial home, leaving her unable to maintain herself and the child. The applicant, stated to be earning from agricultural land, filed a written reply denying the allegations and challenging the jurisdiction of the court, claiming that he is a resident of Balrampur and the non-applicants are residents of Surajpur, while the case was filed in District Korea. He further stated that he owns only one acre of land and expressed willingness to maintain his wife and child at home, thus opposing the claim. After considering the evidence, the Family Court, by order dated 25.08.2017, awarded total maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month, which the applicant contends is excessive. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.08.2017 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is improper, perverse, and contrary to law, and therefore not sustainable. The court failed to appreciate the applicant’s evidence showing that he has no stable or sufficient source of income, yet awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month, which is excessive and beyond his financial capacity. Furthermore, the Family Court did not properly consider 3 the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, as the applicant is a resident of Balrampur, the non-applicants are residents of Surajpur, and the application was filed in District Korea, which does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, the court did not correctly assess the evidence, particularly that the wife is residing separately without sufficient justification, which materially affects her entitlement to maintenance. 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 learned Family Court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record by both parties, rightly passed the order dated 25.08.2017 awarding a total maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the non-applicant wife and minor child. The court took into account the fact that the marriage between the parties was undisputed, and that the wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home due to dowry-related harassment, leaving her and the child without means for sustenance. The applicant’s claim of limited income and jurisdictional objections were duly considered but rightly not accepted, as the primary concern under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that the wife and child, who are unable to maintain themselves, are not left destitute. The maintenance amount awarded is reasonable in view of the applicant’s responsibility toward his dependents and does not reflect any legal or factual impropriety. 4 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 learned 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 as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan