1 2025:CGHC:29522 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 257 of 2018 Jitendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Jeevan Lal Dewangan Aged About 34 Years (Now) Resident Of Village Annpurana Para Kanker P. S. Kanker District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Chetana @ Anima Dewangan W/o Jitendra Kumar Dewangan R/o L. I. G. 23 New Dindayal Colony Junwani Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Present Address Is R/o Village Dondilohara District Balod Chhattisgarh, 2. Ishan Dewangan S/o Jitendra Kumar Dewangan Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Respondent No. 1 ( Mother, Natural Guardian ), R/o L. I. G. 23 New Dindayal Colony Junwani Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Present Address Is R/o Village Dondilohara District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:52 +0530 2 the impugned order dated 03.02.2018 passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.332/2015, whereby the learned Family Court has parlty allowed the application of the respondents filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 5,00/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 2/son till he attains majority, as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents herein had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting of maintenance before the Trial Court against the applicant on the allegations that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife and respondent No.2 is the son of the applicant. The applicant deserted the respondents, and not taking care of them and raising cruelty, mainly averring such, filed application before the Trial Court. Having been served notice of the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the applicant entered in the proceeding of Family Court and resisted the application interalia on the ground that the respondent No.1 her self left the house of applicant due to not like the "Pooja Path and etc" activities of the applicant's family and along with other grounds, and she is able to earn the money and the parents and family of him are living along with him therefore he is unable to pay the maintenance to the respondents. The Family Court after hearing the parties, perusal of record the learned Family Court has passed the final order on 03.02.2018 and granted the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, total Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned 3 orders is bad in law, thus liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has passed the order dated 03.02.2018 on the basis of the pleading provided only by the respondents and ignoring the submission given by the applicant. The applicant has also filed the application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for restitution of Conjugal Rights and in that proceeding so many time during the counseling the counsellor has guide to her but she is not ready to return back with the husband she does not want to leave with him as per he own choice therefore she is not entitled for maintenance amount. The learned Family Court has ignored that the applicant is a Assistant Grade III and he is maintaining his own family (Old aged Parents and young brother) and thereafter, the award of maintenance on higher side is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that in this case, it is undisputed that the respondents are the wife and children of the applicant. It is also undisputed that they are living separately from the applicant. It has been accepted by the applicant that he is working on the post of Assistant Grade-III and he accepts receiving salary after deduction of Rs. 18,000/-. It is clear from this that the applicant is a capable person. The applicant also accepts that he has not 4 given maintenance to the respondents whereas the applicant has a moral and legal responsibility to maintain the respondents and on this basis the respondents are eligible to get maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti