1 2026:CGHC:7148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1118 of 2024 1 - Smt. Rama Pathak W/o Anil Pathak Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Harnachaka P.S.- Lalpur District- Mungeli ( C.G.), Currently Residing At Geedha Tehsil And District- Mungeli ( C.G.). 2 - Minor Asita Pathak D/o Anil Pathak Aged About 1 Years Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Rama Pathak R/o Village- Harnachaka P.S.- Lalpur District- Mungeli ( C.G.), Currently Residing At Geedha Tehsil And District- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus Anil Pathak S/o Late Puran Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Harnachaka P.S.- Lalpur District- Mungeli ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /02/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Mungeli (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.524/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to Rs. 1,200/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance and rejected the said application in respect of applicant No.1. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the Applicant No.1 and the Respondent were lawfully married in the year 2020 at District Mungeli in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, one female child, namely Applicant No.2, was born on 28.07.2023. Soon after the birth of the girl child, the in-laws of Applicant No.1, along with the respondent, became dissatisfied and unhappy, and Applicant No.1 was repeatedly subjected to cruelty, humiliation, and mental as well as physical harassment. Despite such ill-treatment, Applicant No.1 continued to discharge her matrimonial obligations and attempted to maintain the matrimonial relationship. That the Applicant No.1 was subjected to continuous physical and mental torture by the respondent and his family members, and when she raised objections against such cruelty, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter at her parental house. Subsequently, upon an application submitted by the respondent before the concerned Police Station, counselling proceedings were conducted between the parties. During counselling, Applicant No.1 expressed her willingness to reside with the respondent; however, due to persistent physical and 3 mental cruelty, she was constrained to continue residing at her parental home. Thereafter, the respondent contracted a second marriage and completely neglected to maintain the applicants. The respondent did not provide any financial assistance to Applicant No.1 or Applicant No.2, leaving them without any means of sustenance. Having no alternative source of income and being unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, the applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.12.2023 seeking maintenance from the respondent. After recording evidence of both the parties, the Learned Family Court, Mungeli, vide order dated 07.08.2024, partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.1,200/- per month only in favour of Applicant No.2, while rejecting the claim of Applicant No.1 on the ground that she failed to establish cruelty and dowry demand, and further awarded a meagre amount to the minor child. The applicants are aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it denies maintenance to Applicant No.1 and grants an inadequate amount to Applicant No.2, which is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the object and scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court, Mungeli suffers from material infirmities and is liable to be modified in light of the evidence available on record. Applicant No.1 was compelled to reside at her 4 parental home due to continuous mental and physical cruelty inflicted by the respondent and his parents. Though the respondent claims willingness to keep Applicant No.1 with him, his conduct clearly demonstrates coercion and ill-treatment, which forced the applicant to leave the matrimonial home. He further submits that the respondent himself is not prepared to reside peacefully with Applicant No.1 and, in fact, by his conduct and mala fide intentions, compelled her to abandon the matrimonial house. The learned court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the respondent’s illegitimate conduct and substantial assets, including immovable properties and agricultural land, from which he earns sufficient income, thereby erroneously denying maintenance to Applicant No.1. He also submits that the object of maintenance provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to prevent destitution and ensure a dignified standard of living consistent with the status of the family. The learned Family Court erred in not assessing the respondent’s earning capacity and financial resources while determining the reasonable needs of Applicant No.1, who has no independent income sufficient for her support, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 5 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to Rs. 1,200/- per month to applicant No.2 towards maintenance and rejected the said application in respect of applicant No.1, holding that applicant No.1 failed to establish that she was living separately from the respondent for a just and reasonable cause. The learned Family Court observed that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty levelled by applicant No.1 were not proved beyond doubt, particularly in view of her own admissions during cross-examination and the counselling proceedings, wherein both parties had expressed willingness to reside together. 7. The learned Family Court further held that no contemporaneous police complaint or independent corroborative evidence regarding dowry harassment was produced by applicant No.1 and, therefore, her claim of cruelty remained doubtful. On the issue of the respondent’s income, the Court found that the applicant No.1 failed to substantiate her claim regarding substantial income and agricultural land of the respondent, and accordingly assessed his earning capacity on a modest scale. 6 8. However, considering the admitted paternity and the fact that minor applicant No.2 is residing with applicant No.1, the learned Family Court concluded that the respondent is legally bound to maintain his minor daughter and, keeping in view her tender age and the respondent’s limited earning capacity, fixed the maintenance amount as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil