1 2026:CGHC:1964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 692 of 2023 Indrapal Gond S/o Chhotelal Gond Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kodgar, P.S. Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Hirawati W/o Indrapal Gond Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kashimuda, P.S. Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Minor Ishika D/o Indrapal Gond Aged About 4 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Hirawati W/o Indrapal Gond, R/o Village Kashimuda, P.S. Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Minor Rohit S/o Indrapal Aged About 2 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Hirawati W/o Indrapal Gond, R/o Village Kashimuda, P.S. Pasan, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.112/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the wife (Respondent No. 1) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband (Applicant), alleging that he used to come home drunk, beat her, and send her along with their children back to her parental home. The couple married in 2013 and have two children, a daughter and a son. Despite attempts by the husband and local society panchayat to reconcile, the wife refused to return to the matrimonial home, alleging continued cruelty and lack of support. The husband denied all allegations, stating that the wife left the matrimonial home without reason and often returned to her parental house. He claimed to be a daily wage laborer earning very little and argued that the wife is capable of working and sustaining herself. It was also alleged by 3 the wife that the husband married another woman, Sumitra, in July 2022, who already has a child. The Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- for the wife and Rs. 1,000/- each for the minor children, totaling Rs. 3,500/- per month, holding the husband liable to maintain both children until they attain majority. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court’s order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, as it failed to properly consider the statements of both parties and their witnesses. The court ignored the applicant’s pleadings that he was pressured by the respondent and her family to reside away from his own house and that there is no sufficient material proving any ill-treatment by him or his family. Consequently, the respondent had no valid reason to live separately or keep the children away. He further submits that the Family Court overlooked key evidence, including testimony of Applicant’s witness Smt. Durgavati, a neighbor, who stated that the respondent often quarreled and left the house voluntarily. Respondent’s witness Chet Singh also admitted that the applicant works as a daily wage laborer and that the respondent is capable of working, including sewing, with a sewing machine in her possession. The court failed to properly assess these testimonies and cross-examinations. He also submits that the respondent is not entirely dependent on him and is capable of earning her own livelihood. The Family Court wrongly concluded that she had no 4 income or means of support. In absence of proven cruelty or valid reason for living separately, the respondent is not entitled to maintenance, and the order granting maintenance is therefore liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3, towards maintenance observing the fact that the respondent-wife is living separately at her parental home due to the applicant’s verbal and physical abuse and his second marriage, which is considered a sufficient reason. The respondent does not earn and depends on her parents for the maintenance of herself and her children. On the other hand, the applicant is capable of earning and is therefore responsible for providing maintenance to the respondent and their two children. Consequently, the Family Court concluded that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil