1 2026:CGHC:4715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 133 of 2026 Ravishankar Netam S/o Shri Jaitaram Netam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Thanaud Bhatapara Police Station Anjora Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sandhya Netam W/o Ravishankar Netam Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Thanaud Bhatapara Police Station Anjora Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - (Minor) Nikhil S/o Ravishankar Netam Aged About 7 Years (Through- The Guardian Resp. 01) R/o Village- Thanaud Bhatapara Police Station Anjora Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.558/2023, 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.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.04.2023 before the learned Family Court, Durg, seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant/husband. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 03.07.2015 before the Marriage Officer, Durg. After marriage, the respondent alleged that the applicant and his family members used to harass and taunt her for dowry. She further alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with another woman and that he abused and manhandled her, due to which she started living separately from the applicant w.e.f. 24.02.2023. 3. The applicant filed his reply on 30.04.2024, denying all the allegations made by the respondent. He specifically pleaded that the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily without any sufficient or justifiable cause. It was further submitted by the applicant that he is not an educated person and does not earn any income from any source. According to him, he is completely dependent upon his parents for his livelihood. The applicant also contended that the respondent is gainfully employed as a sales 3 girl at H.P. Petrol Pump Power House, Bhilai, and is earning a monthly income of about Rs. 15,700/-. Certain documents and photographs in support of her employment were relied upon, though the same could not be filed and exhibited before the Family Court. The applicant further alleged that the respondent is presently involved in an extra-marital affair and placed reliance on certain message extracts, which also could not be formally proved before the Family Court. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, particularly on the ground that the awarded maintenance amount is excessive and unjustified, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in facts as well as in law and is based on conjectures and surmises. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the material facts on record, particularly that the non-applicant is a working woman employed as a sales girl and is capable of maintaining herself independently. He further submits that the learned Family Court also ignored the fact that the applicant is not an educated person and has no independent source of income, being wholly dependent upon his parents for his livelihood. Despite this, the Court granted maintenance of Rs. 4,500/- per month, which is excessive and imposes an undue financial burden upon the 4 applicant, making compliance with the order extremely difficult. He also submits that the documents annexed with the revision petition are material and relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute but could not be filed or exhibited before the learned Family Court due to an inadvertent mistake. The applicant has further submitted that the non-applicant left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and that he is willing and ready to settle the dispute and keep the non-applicant with him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. 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.2,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that respondent No. 1 had sufficient and justifiable cause to live separately on account of cruelty and harassment by the applicant, that the applicant failed to disclose his true income and was capable of earning, and that the respondents, being the legally wedded wife and minor child of the applicant, were entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding 5 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil