1 CGHC010059032025 2026:CGHC:34262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 223 of 2025 1 - Sushma Khande W/o Parmesh Khande Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kavya Khande D/o Parmesh Khande Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sushma Khande, R/o Village Jamha, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Parmesh Khande S/o Nilkanth Khande Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been .led by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be allowed by this Hon'ble Court and the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Judge Family Court, Mungeli, may kindly be set aside, by allowing RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the maintenance application of applicant no.1 & enhancing the maintenance amount of applicant no. 2, in the interest of Justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 05.01.2019 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, Applicant No. 2, a daughter, was born on 14.05.2021, who is presently in the care and custody of Applicant No. 1. According to the applicants, soon after the birth of the child, the attitude of the respondent changed and he, along with his family members, started subjecting Applicant No. 1 to physical and mental cruelty by persistently demanding Rs.70,000/- in cash and transfer of agricultural land situated adjacent to her parental home as dowry. Unable to bear the continuous harassment, Applicant No. 1 lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station on 20.04.2022. Thereafter, with the intervention of the village Panchayat and well- wishers, the matrimonial dispute was temporarily resolved and Applicant No. 1 returned to her matrimonial home in the hope of leading a peaceful marital life. However, after residing with the respondent for about three to four months, she was again subjected to physical and mental harassment and was ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home, whereafter the respondent refused to take her back or provide any maintenance to her and the minor child. Consequently, the applicants instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court on 19.02.2024 seeking maintenance, 3 speci.cally pleading that the respondent owns approximately .ve acres of agricultural land situated in Village Jamha and is also engaged in the profession of painting, earning approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, and is, therefore, .nancially capable of maintaining the applicants. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, partly allowed the application by awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month only to Applicant No. 2 while rejecting the claim of Applicant No. 1 on the ground that she had failed to establish su=cient cause for residing separately from the respondent, though the Court took note of the respondent’s earning capacity from agricultural sources while determining maintenance for the minor child. Being aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to Applicant No. 1 and the inadequacy of the maintenance awarded to the minor daughter, the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts on record, the evidence adduced by the parties, and the settled principles of law governing grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that Applicant No. 1 was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on account of continuous physical and mental cruelty, harassment, and unlawful demands of Rs.70,000/- in cash and agricultural land by the respondent, which constituted su=cient cause for her to reside 4 separately. It is further submitted that the complaint lodged by Applicant No. 1 before the concerned Police Station, the testimony of independent witnesses, and the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before the learned Family Court duly corroborate the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, yet the same have not been appreciated in their proper perspective. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court also failed to consider that the petition for divorce instituted by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was .led only with a view to evade his legal obligation to maintain Applicant No. 1. It is also contended that the respondent possesses su=cient .nancial means, being the owner of approximately .ve acres of agricultural land in Village Jamha and also working as a painter earning about Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, and therefore he is fully capable of maintaining both the applicants. It is further argued that despite recording the earning capacity of the respondent, the learned Family Court erroneously denied maintenance to Applicant No. 1 and awarded only a meagre sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to Applicant No. 2, which is wholly inadequate to meet the educational, nutritional, medical, and other day-to-day expenses of the minor child. It is, therefore, submitted that the .ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record and the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court, and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by granting maintenance to Applicant No. 1 and suitably 5 enhancing the maintenance awarded to Applicant No. 2. 4. 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 Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District - Mungeli, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 on record, and the entire material available before it, has passed a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has meticulously examined the rival contentions of the parties and has properly appreciated the evidence led by both sides in the light of the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court has recorded speci.c .ndings regarding the allegations levelled by Applicant No. 1, the defence set up by the respondent, and the circumstances under which the parties started residing separately, and upon evaluation of the evidence, has rightly concluded that Applicant No. 1 had failed to establish su=cient grounds entitling her to maintenance. At the same time, the learned Family Court has duly taken into consideration the earning capacity and .nancial resources of the respondent, including his income from agricultural sources, as well as the welfare and maintenance needs of the minor child, and has, therefore, rightly awarded 6 maintenance in favour of Applicant No. 2. The .ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon a proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence, and applicable legal principles. 7. 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. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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