1 CGHC010174172025 2026:CGHC:35597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 641 of 2025 R. Nilesh Relegadla S/o R. Ramana Rao Aged About 35 Years R/o- B- 203, Shri Sai Supreme, Bannereghatta Road Brahmakumari Ashram Road, Gottigere Bangalore, South Bangalore, O#ce Address- Navs Arcade, 11 1st Main Cross, 1st Block Koramangala, Koramangala ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. M. Swathi Alias Himkirti W/o R. Nilesh Relegadla Aged About 30 Years Resident Of M.L. Verma, Plot No. 267/659, Shikshit Nagar, Charoda Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Miss R. Drisha D/o R. Nilesh Relegadla Aged About 2 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother (non-applicant No. 1), Resident Of M.L. Verma, Plot No. 267/659, Shikshit Nagar, Charoda Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate For Non-applicants : Mr. T.K. Jha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This criminal revision has been ;led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the revision and set-aside RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Ist Additional principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Dist.-Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.481/2021 where maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been granted to the non- applicant no. 2, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 16.02.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter namely R. Drisha, non-applicant No.2, was born, who is presently residing with non-applicant No.1. Thereafter, non- applicants No.1 and 2 preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month for non-applicant No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per month for non-applicant No.2, respectively, alleging, inter alia, that after the marriage the applicant had represented that he owned a 3- BHK house at Bengaluru, whereas subsequently it was found that the said premises was rented, that from 23.02.2017 onwards, the mother of the applicant subjected non-applicant No.1 to harassment on account of dowry and made derogatory remarks regarding the inadequacy of dowry brought by her, prior to the marriage, demands for dowry had been raised and her father had allegedly paid Rs.10 lakhs in cash, deposited Rs.5 lakhs in the account of the applicant’s father, paid Rs.1 lakh each to the sisters of the applicant and incurred substantial expenses towards the marriage, the 3 applicant was allegedly maintaining an extra-marital relationship and had also attempted to suBocate non-applicant No.1, that when her father fell ill, the applicant left her at her parental home and thereafter, when she became pregnant, she was allegedly compelled to undergo an abortion, upon the death of her father on 03.10.2018, she requested the applicant to take her back, but he allegedly asked her to return only after delivery, after the birth of non-applicant No.2, being a girl child, a demand of Rs.5 lakhs was allegedly made, and that the applicant had represented himself as unmarried and had nominated his mother in certain records. It was further alleged that non-applicant No.1 subsequently came to know that the applicant had initiated proceedings against her and that the applicant was earning approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per month, whereas the non-applicants were unable to maintain themselves, giving rise to the aforesaid claim for maintenance. 3. Upon service of summons, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and ;led his detailed reply, speci;cally denying the allegations and submitting that non-applicant No.1 was fully aware that the applicant was residing in a rented accommodation at Bengaluru and he had never represented the said premises to be his own, neither the applicant nor his family members had ever demanded dowry and his mother had treated non-applicant No.1 as her own daughter, prior to the marriage, it had been mutually agreed between the families that the marriage expenses would be shared and, accordingly, Rs.5 lakhs had been deposited in the account of the father of non-applicant No.1 and 4 thereafter approximately Rs.12,40,000/- was spent towards the marriage, which was also borne by both families. The applicant further stated that non-applicant No.1 used to remain engaged in prolonged telephonic conversations with another person during late hours and, when questioned, used to quarrel with him, and when her father fell ill, the applicant had taken leave and accompanied her, but thereafter her family demanded Rs.3 lakhs towards medical expenses, on account of which the applicant returned to Bengaluru, non-applicant No.1 was not willing to have a child immediately and desired to continue enjoying her life, during a visit to Shirdi she allegedly became aggressive, threw away her mangalsutra and expressed her unwillingness to continue the matrimonial relationship, and even her mother had acknowledged that such conduct had been persistent since prior to the marriage. It was further stated that on one occasion non-applicant No.1 threatened to hang herself if the applicant did not return home immediately, and upon his arrival she created a scene, threw utensils and expressed her unwillingness to reside with his parents. After the death of her father, non-applicant No.1 did not return to the matrimonial home and insisted that the applicant should ;rst separate from his parents. When non-applicant No.2 was born, the applicant visited the child along with his family members, but they were allegedly insulted and a demand of Rs.5 lakhs was made. Thereafter, on 24.07.2019, non-applicant No.1 along with her family members came to Bengaluru and lodged a complaint alleging that the applicant was not permitting them to reside with him. In view of the 5 welfare of the minor child, the applicant made eBorts to resume cohabitation with non-applicant No.1 and even arranged separate accommodation for his parents, but despite such eBorts, the matrimonial discord continued. The applicant further stated that his in-laws were demanding either Rs.17 lakhs or Rs.30,000/- per month and although he approached the police, no eBective intervention was made as the dispute was treated as a family matter. It was also alleged that non-applicant No.1 visited the workplace of the applicant and attempted to defame him, and subsequently, on 31.01.2020, a case under Sections 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and his family members, in which they were granted anticipatory bail. The applicant further alleged that non-applicant No.1 thereafter visited his house, damaged household articles, obtained duplicate keys of the car and took away various articles along with non-applicant No.2. In relation to the respective ;nancial circumstances, the applicant submitted that non-applicant No.1 had been employed prior to the marriage at Apollo Hospital and CSPDCL and was earning approximately Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the applicant was employed with Optimus BT Company and was earning approximately Rs.1,20,000/- per month, and he was regularly depositing Rs.5,000/- per month under the Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana for the bene;t of non-applicant No.2 and was also burdened with various loans and other ;nancial liabilities. 4. After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the material available on record, the learned First Additional 6 Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to non-applicant No.1 for the maintenance of non-applicant No.2, with eBect from the date of ;ling of the maintenance application, while the claim of non-applicant No.1 for maintenance in her individual capacity was rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order to the extent it directs payment of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month for non-applicant No.2, the applicant has preferred the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Family Court suBers from illegality, impropriety, incorrectness and perversity and is, therefore, not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the ;nancial circumstances and liabilities of the applicant, who is already bearing various expenses towards rent, medical treatment, food and other necessities, is maintaining his aged parents, has several outstanding loans and is also regularly depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- under the Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana for the bene;t of non-applicant No.2. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the applicant at Rs.1,50,000/-, whereas the applicant had speci;cally stated that his actual monthly income was approximately Rs.1,20,000/-, and thus the amount of maintenance has been determined on the basis of an incorrect and imaginary assessment of his income. He further submits that non-applicant No.1 had been working as a computer operator and was earning 7 approximately Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and was, therefore, capable of contributing towards her own maintenance as well as the needs of the minor child. It is also submitted that the award of Rs.15,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child was excessive and disproportionate to the actual needs of a child of such tender age, particularly when the applicant’s income itself was wrongly assessed. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had made sincere and repeated eBorts to resume matrimonial life and bring both the non-applicants back to reside with him and, in order to preserve the matrimonial relationship and ensure their comfort, had even arranged separate accommodation for his aged parents, however, despite such eBorts, non-applicant No.1 chose to reside separately along with the minor child without any su#cient or justi;able reason. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the material facts, the actual income and ;nancial liabilities of the applicant, as well as the conduct and independent earning capacity of non-applicant No.1, and has consequently awarded an excessive amount of maintenance on an erroneous assessment of the applicant’s ;nancial capacity. 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 First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District - Durg, (C.G.). 8 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the rival submissions, oral and documentary evidence and the material available on record, has rightly and judiciously adjudicated the claim for maintenance and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. The learned Family Court has carefully considered the respective stands of the applicant and the non- applicants and, after appreciating the evidence available on record, has consciously declined the claim of non-applicant No.1 for maintenance in her individual capacity, while partly allowing the application only to the extent of the minor daughter, non-applicant No.2. The direction to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor child cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary, particularly having regard to the applicant’s earning capacity, the needs and welfare of the minor child and the settled principle that a father is under a legal and moral obligation to provide for the maintenance, education, health and other reasonable necessities of his minor daughter. The learned Family Court has also rightly taken into consideration the ;nancial circumstances of the parties and the fact that the minor child is residing with non-applicant No.1 and is dependent upon her for her day-to-day care and necessities. Merely because the applicant has claimed certain loans, personal expenses and other ;nancial liabilities, the same cannot absolve him of his primary responsibility 9 towards the maintenance of his minor daughter. Likewise, the alleged earning capacity of non-applicant No.1 does not disentitle the minor child from receiving appropriate maintenance from the applicant, particularly when the maintenance has been awarded for the child and not to non-applicant No.1 in her individual capacity. The learned Family Court has further made the order operative from the date of ;ling of the maintenance application, which is also consistent with the nature and object of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, the ;ndings recorded by the learned Family Court are based upon the material available on record and the order, being reasoned and balanced inasmuch as the individual claim of non-applicant No.1 has been rejected while reasonable maintenance has been granted only for the minor daughter. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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