1 CGHC010065222025 2026:CGHC:36260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 253 of 2025 Alok Kashyap S/o Ratan Lal Kashyap Aged About 29 Years Cast - Kurmi, R/o Village Bhathapara Near Gas Agency Birra, Tahsil Birra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Vimla Kashyap W/o Alok Kashyap D/o Daharu Kashyap Aged About 27 Years Cast Kurmi R/o Village Birra P.S. Birra Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Om Kashyap S/o Alok Kashyap Aged About 4 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Vimla Kashyap Cast Kurmi R/o Village Birra P.S. Birra Tahsil Champa District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate holding brief of Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. Ms. Mamta Mahilange, learned counsel, submits that the matter is to be argued by Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents, however, he is on adjustment today and is, therefore, unable to appear and argue the matter. She accordingly prays for an adjournment. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Considering the submission made, since the matter pertains to the year 2025 and is an old matter, the request for adjustment cannot be entertained at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment is rejected. The matter is heard :nally with the assistance of the Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate holding brief for Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This criminal revision has been :led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principle Judge Family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 353/2022, in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1, along with respondent No.2, preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the applicant, claiming a total amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.5,000/- each for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was pleaded that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 16.06.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and, after the marriage, respondent No.1 started residing with the applicant at her matrimonial home as his wife. Out of the said wedlock, respondent No.2 was born. It was further alleged by respondent No.1 that, after some time of the marriage, the applicant 3 and his family members started harassing and subjecting her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and also used :lthy language and committed physical assault upon her. It was further alleged that the applicant made repeated demands for dowry and, due to such harassment and cruelty, respondent No.1 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and thereafter started residing at her parental house along with respondent No.2. It was also pleaded that respondent No.1 had no independent source of income to maintain herself and respondent No.2, whereas the applicant was engaged in the business of purchasing fruits at Village Birra and was earning approximately Rs.2,000/- per day from the said business. It was further stated that the applicant was also possessed of agricultural land and had suAcient means to maintain the respondents. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and assertions regarding the applicant’s income and :nancial capacity, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the applicant. 5. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and :led his reply, denying the allegations and averments made in the maintenance application and contending that he was not liable to pay the amount claimed by the respondents. 6. After considering the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 23.11.2024, allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 4 respondents, comprising Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2024, whereby the learned Family Court granted maintenance in favour of the respondents, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material evidence and documents available on record. It is submitted that the applicant is a person with intellectual disability and weak mental faculties, which is duly substantiated by the disability certi:cate :led as Annexure A-2. According to the applicant, respondent No.1 was aware of his condition, yet she frequently quarrelled with him, taunted and humiliated him on account of his weak mental condition and, without any suAcient or justi:able reason, voluntarily left the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the applicant has always been willing to maintain the matrimonial relationship and had made eEorts to lead a peaceful matrimonial life, but respondent No.1 refused to reside with him and chose to live separately on her own. He further submits that the applicant has already instituted proceedings under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, seeking dissolution of marriage, which are presently pending consideration, and the relevant proceedings have been :led as Annexure A-3 . 8. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that respondent No.1 is herself earning her livelihood by working in a cloth shop and 5 is earning approximately Rs.8,000/- per month, and therefore she has an independent source of income and is capable of maintaining herself. It is also submitted that respondent No.1, in her statement recorded under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has admitted that she sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. after institution of the divorce proceedings by the applicant. It is contended that respondent No.1 has failed to establish that she was subjected to harassment, cruelty or dowry demand by the applicant, and prior to :ling the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., she had never made any complaint to her relatives or any competent authority regarding the alleged harassment or demand of dowry. Learned counsel submits that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without suAcient cause and thereafter made no bona :de eEort to resume cohabitation with the applicant. Thus, according to the applicant, the circumstances in which respondent No.1 has been residing separately and the absence of any suAcient reason for such separation have not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court while granting maintenance. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the :nancial condition of the applicant is extremely weak. The applicant is engaged in a small fruit-selling business and has only a meagre income, whereas the respondents failed to place any reliable documentary evidence on record to establish the alleged income of the applicant or to substantiate that he owns any agricultural land. It is further submitted that the applicant has the responsibility of maintaining his old mother and other dependent family members 6 and there is no other person to look after them except the applicant. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month without properly assessing the actual income, earning capacity and :nancial liabilities of the applicant. He also submits that the amount awarded is excessive in view of the applicant’s :nancial condition and that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the respective means of the parties and the circumstances leading to respondent No.1’s separate residence. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 suEers from legal and factual in:rmities and deserves to be set aside, or in the alternative, the amount of maintenance deserves to be suitably reduced. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir - Champa, (C.G.). 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. From a perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings of the parties, the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the overall circumstances of the case, has rightly appreciated the material placed before it and has passed the order granting maintenance in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned Family Court has properly considered the admitted relationship between the parties, 7 the solemnization of marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 on 16.06.2017, the birth of respondent No.2 out of the said wedlock, as well as the circumstances in which respondent No.1 was residing separately along with respondent No.2. The learned Court below has also taken into consideration the evidence regarding the applicant’s earning capacity and means to maintain the respondents, as well as the fact that respondent No.1 had no suAcient independent source of income to maintain herself and the minor respondent No.2. After examining the material available on record, the learned Family Court has not awarded the amount claimed by the respondents in its entirety, but has awarded a reasonable and modest amount of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.2, totalling Rs.2,000/- per month. Thus, the amount awarded is neither excessive nor disproportionate to the circumstances of the parties. The :ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the learned Family Court appears to be just, proper and well- reasoned. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the :nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in:rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. Let a certi:ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan