1 2025:CGHC:32933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 235 of 2020 Kailash Prasad S/o Ram Kishun Kushwaha, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rajbahar, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Sushila Devi @ Pinki W/o Kailash Kushwaha, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rajbahar, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Prince Kushwaha S/o Kailash Prasad Kushwaha, Aged About 3 Years Being Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Sushila Devi, R/o Village Rajbahar, Police Station And Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Mamta Gendle holding the brief of Mr. Ashok K. Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.281/2019, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed 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 the respondent No.1 being the wife of the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2011 and after marriage she was subjected to ill treatment due to demand of dowry, therefore, she was forced to live separately and the respondent does not take care of her maintenance. The learned Family Court after appreciating the fact of the case has awarded monthly maintenance as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider that there are ample evidence that the respondent is living separately at her own will without any proper reason and justification and the only allegation made by the respondent No.1 that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant. Moreover, she admitted in her application that the applicant has filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but the respondent No.1 has denied to live with the applicant, hence, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is bad in the eye of lay and the same is liable to be set-aside. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing the statements of the witnesses, it is established that the respondent is the wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 is their child. They are residing separately from the applicant. Therefore, they are entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. It does not appear that the respondent has any source of income. The respondent stated that the applicant earns Rs.6,00,000/- per annum from agriculture and Rs.6,000/- per month from labor, but she failed to provide any evidence regarding the applicant’s agricultural land, income from it, or any other source of income. However, the applicant mentioned in his cross-examination that he owns land and cultivates it, and also stated that he does labor work. In this situation, it is presumed that the applicant earns a minimum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Considering the social and economic background of both parties and the dependents on the applicant, the Family Court seems it appropriate to award the respondents monthly maintenance as aforementioned. 4 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record as well as the certified copy of this order to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil