1 2025:CGHC:32966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 168 of 2021 Indrapal Singh Chouhan(Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet Indrapal Sahi Chouhan) S/o Rohan Chouhan Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Charghat , Police Station Dadhi, Tehsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Durga Chouhan W/o Indrapal Chouhan Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Charghat, At Present Ambedkar Ward Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dani Singh Chouhan S/o Indrapal Singh Chouhan Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Durga Chouhan, Resident Of Village Charghat, At Present Ambedkar Ward Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari holding the brief of Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad, 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 29.08.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara, District – Bemetara (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.189/2019, 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.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC against the applicant, claiming Rs.12,000/- per month. They alleged that the applicant, who married the respondent No.1 in 2011, subjected her to cruelty, including verbal abuse and physical assault. Despite temporary reconciliations, the applicant eventually left her and their two children. There respondents further claimed that the applicant performed a second marriage and has significant assets, including 30 acres of land and a tractor, with an annual income of Rs.14 lakhs. The Family Court, after sending notice to the applicant, which he allegedly refused, passed an ex-parte order, awarding Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 (minor child). The applicant challenges this order, arguing that the maintenance amount is unjustified and that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed grave error in not considering that fact that the income of the applicant has not been proved by the respondent No.1, further the allegations of torture is also not been proved and in order to grant maintenance, the Family Court should have 3 examined the income of the applicant and should have given proper opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the Family Court should have held that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are living in her parental house without any sufficient reasons and she has failed to produce any single documents regarding the income of the applicant, hence, the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Family Court 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 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that the respondent has not provided documents regarding the applicant’s land and vehicle. Without these documents, it is unclear how much land the applicant owns and what vehicle he possesses. However, it is noted that the applicant is physically fit and capable of earning a living. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 4 in the matter of Madhuri vs. Chaganlal (1983), wherein is held a physically fit person is obligated to maintain their wife. He further observed that the respondent No. 1 (wife) is living separately from the applicant due to his physical abuse and his taking of a second wife, which constitutes a justifiable reason for her separation. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that respondent No.1 (wife) is entitled to maintenance from the applicant. The respondent No. 2 (minor child) is also entitled to maintenance, as the applicant is responsible for their upkeep. 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. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil