1 2025:CGHC:9835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 266 of 2025 1 - Lingo Singh Gond S/o Ramadhin Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o 48, Kharora, Post Bhukal, P.S Basna, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Menka Gond W/o Lingo Singh Gond Aged About 28 Years R/o C/o. Guddu Ram Uike, Ram Krishna Hospital Chowk, Gurumukh Singh Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Koya Gond S/o Lingo Singh Gond Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Menka Gond, R/o C/o. Guddu Ram Uike, Ram Krishna Hospital Chowk, Gurumukh Singh Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025 – an application for condonation of del in filing the instant criminal revision. 2 2. On due consideration and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 3. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principle Judge Family Court Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal M.C.C. No. 179 of 2023. 4. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, specifically requesting Rs. 10,000 per month. The present applicant and respondent no. 1 were married on February 5, 2017, according to Hindu customs, and respondent no. 2 was born out of their wedlock. Respondent no. 1 alleged that the applicant and his family members harassed and tortured her, demanding dowry and using filthy language. She claimed that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home and now resides with her son, respondent no. 2, at her parental home. Respondent no. 1 stated that she has no source of income and is dependent on others for survival. In contrast, the applicant runs a successful business, earning Rs. 30,000 per month, and owns 22 acres of agricultural land, generating an annual income of Rs. 3 15,00,000. Based on these claims, the respondents sought maintenance of Rs.15,000 per month (Rs.10,000 for respondent no. 1 and Rs. 5,000 for respondent no. 2). The applicant denied all allegations in their reply and claimed that they are unable to pay maintenance. Despite this, the Family Court passed an order on July 30, 2024, allowing the maintenance application and directing the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000 per month (Rs. 4,000 for respondent no. 1 and Rs. 1,000 for respondent no. 2). Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent-wife has left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and also has not made any efforts to come and reside with the present applicant. He goes on to submit that the applicant is working in fruit shop and he is earning very low income, the respondent-wife has also failed to prove the income of the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the maintenance amount is on higher side and is liable to be modified. Hence he pleads to allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order of maintenance passed by the concerned Family Court. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused impugned order passed by the concerned Family court with utmost circumspection. 7. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that present applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1 and they both have a child. It is also evident from the records that the respondents no.1 has sufficient reason to reside separately with her husband (revisionist) which is mental and physical harassment, she live separately from her husband. 8. Looking to the social and economic status of the parties and particularly the fact that the wife of the applicant has no source of income. In view of the above, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, there is no illegality or perversity in order passed by the learned Family Court, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in this case, therefore, this revision application deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA