1 2025:CGHC:27728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 269 of 2019 Ramnihora S/o Videshi Kaushik Aged About 66 Years R/o Bhatkudera, P.S. And Tahsil S. Lohara, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Kunti Kaushik W/o Ramnihora Kaushik Aged About 54 Years R/o D/o Late Bhiayalal Kaushik, Bhatkudera, P.S. And Tahsil S. Lohara, At Present, R/o Bamhani, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, alleging that the applicant expressed dissatisfaction over the birth of two daughters and conveyed his desire for a male child. It was further alleged that the applicant married another woman, Durpati Bai, and started living with her. This application is on record as Annexure A-2. In response, the applicant denied all allegations and stated that the non-applicant frequently quarreled with him and his family and often left for her parental home. His reply is filed as Annexure A-3. During the proceedings before the trial court, the applicant, who was then the non-applicant, had engaged an advocate, but on 11-01-2019, the advocate could not appear. Due to the applicant’s unfamiliarity with legal procedures, it was mistakenly recorded that he did not wish to adduce any witness, although he intended to do so. Subsequently, the trial court passed the impugned order dated 18- 01-2019 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18-01-2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned court below is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and settled principles of law. The court failed to consider that the applicant had engaged an advocate for legal assistance, but due to the advocate’s absence on 11-01-2019, and the applicant’s lack of understanding of legal procedures, it was erroneously recorded that he did not wish to adduce any witness. The court ought to have granted an opportunity for leading evidence. It is further submitted 3 that the non-applicant is living separately of her own volition, without any justifiable reason, and is therefore not entitled to maintenance. The reply filed before the trial court clearly sets out facts to support this position. Moreover, the applicant is a 66-year-old man, financially weak, dependent on his children, and unable to afford proper medical treatment, whereas the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself. In light of these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a just and reasoned conclusion. Based on the analysis of the evidence, the points for determination, and the findings, the Court correctly held that the non-applicant (Kunti Kaushik) had successfully proved her case for maintenance. Taking into account the social status of both parties, their earning capacities, the number of dependents, and the probable expenses involved, the Court has passed an appropriate and balanced order directing the applicant to pay a monthly maintenance amount of ₹1,700/- to the non-applicant. The said order is fair, lawful, and in accordance with the objectives of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which aims to prevent destitution and ensure financial support to a dependent spouse. 4 7. Considering the submission 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan