1 2025:CGHC:30969 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 326 of 2019 1 - Smt. Pratibha Tandiya W/o Raghvendra Tandiya Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post Office - Anwari, Police Station - Birejhar, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Rajvika Tandiya D/o Raghvendra Tandiya Aged About 2 Years (Applicant No. 2 Being Minor On Behalf Of Through Her Legal / Natural Guardian Mother Of The Applicant No. 1 Smt. Pratibha Tandiya). R/o Village And Post Office - Anwari, Police Station - Birejhar, Tahsil - Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Raghvendra Tandiya S/o Santram Tandiya Aged About 30 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Sukma, Tahsil And District Sukma Chhattisgarh. Office Address - District Treasury (Treasury Office), Collectorate Campus, Sukma, District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in MJC No.48/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 only towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is undisputed that the marriage between the applicant No. 1 and the respondent took place on 16.05.2010, in accordance with social customs at village Anvari, tehsil Kurud. The couple had two daughters, Ku. Janvi and Ku. Rajvika Tiwari, born out of this wedlock. The applicant resided with the respondent at his place of posting until 20.12.2017. It is also undisputed that the respondent, Raghavendra Tiwari, is a Grade-III Government Employee. After the marriage, the respondent and his parents treated the applicant No. 1 cruelly, demanding dowry and gold and silver ornaments. They would often abuse, beat, and mentally harass her over small issues. When the applicant No. 1 was pregnant the respondent would beat her under the influence of alcohol and throw her out of the house. As a result, Ku. Janvi was born on 29.11.2011, at the applicant's parental home in village Anvari. Despite enduring the harassment, the applicant hoped for an improvement in the respondent's behavior. However, the respondent and his family continued to harass her physically, mentally, and financially during her second pregnancy. Consequently, their second daughter, Ku. Rajvika, was born on 22.04.2016, at her parental home. The 3 applicant further alleged that on 24.12.2017, the respondent and his parents visited her parental home for the "chhath" ceremony of her brother's child. The next day, they demanded dowry and threatened to divorce her if their demands were not met. In February 2018, the respondent visited the applicant's parental home, demanded money, and threatened to ruin the entire family if his demands were not fulfilled. He took their elder daughter, Ku. Janvi, with him. The applicant filed a report at the Birejhar Police Station on 14.02.2018, regarding the harassment. Due to the respondent's actions, the applicant is physically weak, suffers from illness, and has no source of income. The applicant stated that the respondent is working as an Assistant Grade-3 in the District Treasury and earns a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. His father is the Principal of a Primary School in Bagodar. The respondent and his family members own agricultural land and houses in villages Muddhwa, District Kanker, and Narharpur, generating an annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-. The applicant No. 1 has prayed for a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- for herself and Rs.10,000/- for her daughter. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay maintenance as aforementioned to applicant No.2 only. Hence, the criminal revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has been residing separately due to sufficient and reasonable cause, 4 namely, the respondent's cruelty and harassment over dowry demands and taunts about her character. Despite these circumstances, the Family Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case and wrongly presumed that the applicants were not entitled to maintenance. He further submits that the respondent's history of cruelty, including physical and mental abuse, is evident from the fact that the applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter at her parental home on 20.12.2017. The respondent's actions demonstrate a clear pattern of ill-treatment and harassment, which justifies the applicant's decision to live separately. He also submits that the Family Court also overlooked the evidence of the applicant's witnesses, who corroborated the allegations of dowry demands, physical abuse, and taunts. The respondent's attempts to harm the applicant on multiple occasions further underscore his culpability. Given these circumstances, it is clear that the applicant is entitled to maintenance from the respondent. The pending petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the respondent, further supports the applicant's claim for maintenance. The respondent's lack of effort to reunite with the applicant and their child demonstrates his lack of interest in maintaining them. The applicant's financial dependence, lack of education, and inability to earn a living, it is imperative that the respondent provides maintenance. The respondent's stable employment and handsome salary make him capable of paying 5 maintenance. Lastly, the respondent's salary of over Rs.21,659/- and his ability to maintain his wife and child, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable amount of maintenance. The impugned order passed by the Family Court's is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the applicant abandoned her two children with the respondent and had gone somewhere else. He further 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 only towards maintenance observing that the applicant No. 1 has failed to prove that she is living separately from her husband, the respondent, for any reasonable cause, hence, the Family Court concluded that applicant No.1 is not entitled to maintenance. So far as applicant No.2 is concerned, applicant No. 2 being the daughter of the respondent, it is the legal and moral obligation of the father to maintain his child. Considering the socio-economic status, lifestyle, and other 6 pertinent circumstances of both parties, as well as the documents on record, and taking into account the fact that the elder daughter, Ku. Janvi, is residing with the respondent and incurring expenses for her upbringing, and considering the current cost of living, the Family Court concluded that applicant No.2 is entitled to maintenance. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil