1 2026:CGHC:5284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 164 of 2026 Manglu Ram Durg S/o Laxminath Durg Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Marenga Panka Para Police Station Parpa District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Divya Durg W/o Manglu Ram Durg Aged About 26 Years R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Saurabh Kumar Durg S/o Manglu Ram Durg Aged About 10 Years (Minor Through Their Guardian Mother Divya Durg W/o Manglu Ram Durg Aged About 26 Years) R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Ahan Kumar Durg S/o Manglu Ram Durg Aged About 4 Years (Minor Through Their Guardian Mother Divya Durg W/o Manglu Ram Durg Aged About 26 Years) R/o Vrindawan Colony Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by Learned Judge Family Court, Jagdalpur RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 District Bastar (C.G.) in Criminal Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 139/2022 may kindly be set aside to the extent it grants maintenance to Respondent No. 1 and such other relief(s) may be granted as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No.1–wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and respondent Nos.2 and 3, pleading that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 04.11.2011 and out of the wedlock two children were born. It was alleged that soon after the birth of the first child, and subsequently after the birth of the second child, the applicant subjected her to cruelty and harassment, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents along with the children. Respondent No.1 claimed that she is non-earning and has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant is employed as a Manager at Aradhya International, Village Keshlur, earning about Rs.30,000/- per month, yet failed to maintain the respondents. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home in the year 2017, was working at a beauty parlour at Jagdalpur, and that the parties had obtained divorce by mutual consent on 11.12.2018 as per community customs. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 is financially independent, that the 3 applicant is willing to keep the respondents with him, and that he is not in a position to pay maintenance due to family liabilities. The learned Family Court, by impugned order dated 15.10.2025, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,300/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3, against which the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the learned Court has granted maintenance in favour of respondent No.1 without proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No.1 had voluntarily deserted the applicant in the year 2017 without any justifiable or sufÏcient cause and further ignored the specific pleading and evidence adduced by the applicant showing that respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and earning independently. The learned Court also failed to take into account the relative income and financial capacity of the parties while determining the quantum of maintenance and recorded a finding that the applicant has sufÏcient income without any cogent proof on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in its true spirit and perspective, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 after due and proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and material available on record. The learned Court has rightly taken into consideration the marital relationship between the parties, the birth of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the wedlock, the admitted obligation of the applicant to maintain his wife and minor children, as well as the inability of respondent No.1 to maintain herself and the children. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court has exercised judicious discretion by granting a reasonable and modest amount, keeping in view the income capacity of the applicant, the needs of the respondents and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court, has partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,300/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.3, in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. 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 5 this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan