1 CGHC010070282025 2026:CGHC:34571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 308 of 2025 Raju Ram Sonkar S/o Ram Kumar Sonkar Aged About 45 Years R/o Pandariya Road Mungeli (Near Paani Tanki), Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Durgeshwari Sonkar W/o Raju Ram Sonkar Aged About 35 Years R/o Gram Ambedkar Ward (Near Paani Tanki), Ward No. 13, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Prithvi Sonkar S/o Raju Ram Sonkar Aged About 12 Years Minor Represented Through His Mother Smt Durgeshwari Sonkar, R/o Gram Ambedkar Ward (Near Paani Tanki), Ward No. 13, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Bhumi Sonkar D/o Raju Ram Sonkar Aged About 9 Years Minor Represented Through Her Mother Smt Durgeshwari Sonkar R/o Gram Ambedkar Ward (Near Paani Tanki), Ward No. 13, Tehsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 4led by the applicant with the following prayer: RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to i. Call the entire record from the courts below, in the interest of justice; ii. May kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Family Court, Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case no. 10/2024, in the interest of justice; iii. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems 1t in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant/husband and respondent No.1/wife was solemnized about 15 years ago in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely respondent No.2 (son) and respondent No.3 (daughter), were born. Thereafter, respondent No.1 instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Mungeli, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month for herself and the minor children. In the said application, it was alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant along with his family members subjected respondent No.1 to physical and mental cruelty and harassment. It was further alleged that on 22.02.2022, after 3 physically assaulting and harassing her, the applicant and his family members compelled respondent No.1 to leave the matrimonial home, whereafter she started residing separately along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 in a rented accommodation. It was also pleaded that the applicant is a mechanic engaged in the business of auto parts and earns approximately Rs.45,000/- per month (Rs.1,500/- per day), besides deriving an annual income of about Rs.10,00,000/- from ancestral agricultural land jointly owned with his brother, and on the strength of the said averments, maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month was claimed. 3. The applicant entered appearance and 4led his detailed reply denying all the allegations levelled against him. While admitting the marital relationship and the parentage of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the applicant speci4cally denied the allegations of cruelty, harassment and desertion, and contended that during her training at Bhilai (Chhattisgarh), respondent No.1 frequently visited and spent considerable time at the residence of one Amit Sonkar. It was further pleaded that respondent No.1 had lodged a false criminal complaint against the applicant and his family members only because the ancestral property had neither been partitioned nor registered in her name. The applicant also asserted that respondent No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any su>cient cause and was residing separately of her own free will, and that she is gainfully employed as a teacher in Saraswati Shishu Mandir School, thereby being capable of maintaining herself. On the aforesaid grounds, dismissal of the maintenance application was 4 prayed for. 4. After appreciating the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the learned Family Court, Mungeli, by order dated 09.12.2024 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.10/2024, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent No.3, totalling Rs.7,200/- per month. Being aggrieved by and dissatis4ed with the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the same has been passed without proper appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is a person of limited means who earns his livelihood by working as a mechanic and has no substantial source of income as alleged by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court completely ignored the 4nancial liabilities of the applicant, including the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents who are dependent upon him. She further submits that the learned Family Court failed to examine the income and 4nancial capacity of both the parties in its proper perspective as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh 5 v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been held that while deciding an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to make a realistic assessment of the income, assets, liabilities and 4nancial status of both parties so as to ensure that the maintenance awarded is just, reasonable and does not cause undue hardship to either party. 6. It is also argued that respondent No.1 had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any su>cient or justi4able cause and, therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. In support of the said contention, reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder, (2003) 11 SCC 303, wherein it has been held that where the allegations of cruelty and harassment are not substantiated by reliable evidence and the wife has left the matrimonial home without su>cient cause, she is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that the allegations of cruelty and harassment levelled by respondent No.1 are false, baseless and unsupported by any cogent evidence and that the applicant and his family members had always treated her with due care and aAection. She submits that respondent No.1 failed to adduce any reliable evidence to substantiate the allegations made in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereas the defence taken by the applicant has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. It is, therefore, contended that the maintenance awarded is excessive, disproportionate to the actual 6 income and 4nancial capacity of the applicant and has been granted without proper appreciation of the material available on record, thereby rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District - Mungeli, (C.G.). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, and the entire material available on record, has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded well-reasoned 4ndings. The learned Family Court has duly taken into consideration the marital relationship between the parties, the existence of respondent Nos.2 and 3 born out of the wedlock, the allegations and counter-allegations raised by the respective parties, as well as the 4nancial status and earning capacity of the applicant. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the learned Family Court found that respondent No.1 and the minor children were entitled to maintenance and, instead of granting the amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as claimed by the respondents, awarded only a reasonable sum of Rs.4,500/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,200/- per month to respondent 7 No.3, aggregating to Rs.7,200/- per month, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The 4ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 4nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in4rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a certi4ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan