1 2025:CGHC:31323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 335 of 2020 Kamta Anande S/o Shri Kaliram Anande Aged About 28 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner And Vehicle Driver R/o Rameshwar Nagar, Chandrakar Para, Near Santoshi Mandir , Police Station Bhanpuri , (Wrongly Mentioned As Bharpuri) District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Indrani Anande W/o Kamta Anande Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Garra , Police Station Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Riya Anande D/o Kamta Anande Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Indrani Anande W/o Kamta, R/o Village Garra, Police Station Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 03/02/2020 passed by the learned family Court Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.), passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.233/2019 and the Criminal Revision may be allowed in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicants (wife and minor child) filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking monthly maintenance of ₹12,000/- from the applicant (husband), alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and unlawful demands of ₹1,00,000/- and a motorcycle by the applicant and his family members, due to which she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 07/12/2018. The applicant filed a reply before the Family Court denying all the allegations. During the proceedings, the non-applicant examined herself and two other witnesses, namely Lakhan Kurrey and Kalindri, in support of her claims. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order granting ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants. Aggrieved by the said order, alleging improper appreciation of the applicant’s evidence and legal infirmity, the applicant has preferred this petition before this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be set aside as it suffers from legal and factual infirmities. The Court 3 failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the applicant and passed the order without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case. It was not established that the applicant had ever tortured or made unlawful demands from the non- applicant. The non-applicant left the matrimonial home without any valid or justifiable reason and is now residing at her parental home, which disentitles her from claiming maintenance. The applicant, being an unemployed and financially weak person, has no stable source of income, and the Family Court failed to consider this crucial fact while awarding maintenance. Moreover, the applicant has expressed his willingness to maintain and reside with the non- applicant, but despite that, she has voluntarily chosen to stay separately. The Family Court also ignored the fact that the non- applicant is quarrelsome in nature and did not fulfill her marital responsibilities. Thus, the order granting maintenance in her favour is arbitrary, contrary to law, and deserves 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 facts and evidence placed on record and passed a just and reasoned order granting ₹3,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicants (wife and minor child). The Court, after considering the testimony of the wife and two independent witnesses Lakhan Kurrey and Kalindri rightly concluded that the wife was subjected to cruelty and unlawful 4 demands by the applicant and his family members, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. The maintenance awarded is modest and reasonable, considering the needs of the non-applicants and the capacity of the applicant. The order reflects a balanced approach to ensure that the wife and minor child are not left destitute and are provided with necessary support for a dignified life. Therefore, the Family Court’s decision is fair, lawful, and in accordance with the principles laid down under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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. 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 Rahul Dewangan