1 2025:CGHC:34572 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 217 of 2025 Rajnish Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Ashok Tiwari Aged About 30 Years Occupation Service And Business, R/o Village Namnakala, Ambikapur, Tahsil And Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Priyanka Tiwari W/o Shri Rajnish Tiwari Aged About 22 Years D/o Shri Sunil Tiwari, R/o Village Namnakala, Ambikapur, Tahsil And Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At Ward No. 15 Promabag, Post Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Akanksha Tiwari Aged About 2.5 Years, Minor (Minor Non Petitioner No. 02 Through Her Natural Guardian I.E. Mother Smt. Priyanka Tiwari, W/o Shri Rajnish Tiwari, R/o Village Namnakala, Ambikapur, Tahsil And Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. Presently Resided At Ward No. 15 Promabag, Post Baikunthpur, Police Station And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. A.N.Bhakta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.N.Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 19/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts according to the applicant are that both the parties are governed by the General Principle of Hindu Law and marriage between them was solemnized on 21.06.2018 as per the Hindu rites and their custom and presently they are living separately at the addresses mentioned above. After marriage, the Respondent No.01 (Wife) lived with applicant (Husband) only one & half month, in between she always used to go her parents' house. After five & six months, parents of the Respondent No.01 took her away from in- laws house pressurizing the present applicant (Husband) that unless and until he lived separately from his father & mother, she will not live with him together. Only on this account, without any valid & sufficient reason, she left the house of 3 applicant (Husband). It is submitted that during the matrimonial relation, the Respondent No.02 was born. In the month of March 2020 & onwards, the applicant tried to bring back the Respondent No.01 (Wife) but she refused to live with the applicant (Husband) and denied to perform the conjugal duty. Thereafter, the Respondent No.01 filed instant application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the learned Family Court erroneously and contrary to law. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, is against the facts, materials and evidence available on record, which is liable to be set-aside. The applicant never neglected or refused to maintain the Respondent No.01 but she (Wife) herself do not want to live with the applicant and his parents. At this juncture, it is apposite to mention here that the applicant has already moved an application Under Section 09 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 18.11.2019, for restitution of conjugal rites against the Respondent No.01, which was allowed by the learned Family Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 253-A/2019. On bare perusal of this order, it is depict that the Respondent No.01 is herself on her fault and deliberately living separately from the house of the applicant, therefore the application filed by the Respondent No.01 for grant of maintenance is liable to be set-aside. The Respondent No.01 herself is not ready to live with her in-laws, therefore as per 4 provision of Section 144(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the Petitioner and hence the impugned order is liable to be rejected / set-aside. Also, the Respondent No.01 is working as a Data Entry Operator on contract basis in the CSPDCL Office, Baikunthpur and getting sufficient salary for her livelihood. Lastly, the applicant is an unemployed person and is not having source of income and is still ready and willing to take care the Respondents at his house along with parents, as he never ousted them from his house. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. 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 the pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the applicant is a civil engineer and has a truck and also has sufficient agricultural land and hence is capable to maintain the respondents, who are living separately for sufficient reason, as such, the learned Family Court 5 granted maintenance to the respondents, which cannot be said to be on a higher side. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal