1 2026:CGHC:7144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1337 of 2024 Muktesh Das Manikpuri S/o Omprakash Manikpuri, Aged About 30 Years R/o Jorapara, Dalghotani Gali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Lalima Manikpuri W/o Muktesh Das Manikpuri, Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o - Father Deenu Baghel, Village-G. Jamgaon, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Bhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- At Present R/o House Of Nilesh Jha, Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Bandhwapara, Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. C.G. 2. Ku. Naitikta Manikpuri D/o Muktesh Das Manikpuri, Aged About 6 Years Through Next Friend Mother - Lalima Manikpuri, --- R/o C/o - Father Deenu Baghel, Village-G. Jamgaon, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Bhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- At Present R/o House Of Nilesh Jha, Near Satbahaniya Mandir, Bandhwapara, Purani Basti, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. C.G. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advcoate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C.No. 1040/2019, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondents, and ordered the applicant/husband PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.10 14:08:10 +0530 2 that he has to pay the amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent No.2. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 27.11.2011 in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals at G. Jamgaon, District Dhamtari (C.G.). Out of the said wedlock, a baby daughter, i.e., respondent No. 2, was born on 09.10.2012. According to respondent No. 1, she spent a few months of happy matrimonial life at her matrimonial home; however, thereafter the applicant started committing physical assault and abusing her, and his family members also misbehaved with her. The applicant allegedly avoided the respondents, and consequently, on 01.08.2013, the respondents left the matrimonial house and started residing at her parental home. On 13.11.2019, the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bearing M.C.C. No. 1040/2019, wherein vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, the said application was partly allowed and maintenance to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- per month was granted in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1, on behalf of respondent No. 2, filed an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 15.10.2024 for recovery of the remaining maintenance amount of Rs. 3,64,000/- for the period from 13.11.2019 up to the month of October, 2024. The applicant has received notice to appear before the learned Family Court on 18.11.2024. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 07.08.2024. The applicant is fully dependent upon his father due to his serious medical condition, as he is suffering from liver damage and requires hospitalization every month for treatment. The 3 reason that the learned Family Court has recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 is earning a proper and regular income from her employment as a Data Entry Operator and, on that basis, rightly rejected the claim of maintenance against respondent No. 1, while also observing that she bears certain expenses towards the maintenance of her daughter. The applicant is presently unemployed and his father’s business has also been closed due to the demise of the applicant’s brother, who was running the said business, and consequently the financial condition of the applicant is extremely poor. The learned Family Court ought to have taken into consideration the prevailing economic conditions and the high cost of medical treatment, and that directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 has made it extremely difficult for the petitioner to sustain himself. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the respondents is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 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 impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 4 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 as well as original record be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti