A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and child despite limited income, highlighting the statutory right to maintenance irrespective of personal financial burdens.

Order on Board

28.07.2025

1. Heard Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant.

Also heard Ms. Meenu Benarjee, learned counsel for the non-

applicants.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer:

RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 03/01/2024 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1090/2022 in the interest of justice.”

3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant No.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and her minor child (non-applicant No.2). It was stated that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 20.05.2018 at village Louda, District Mungeli, as per Hindu customs, and they lived together happily for two years. Thereafter, she was allegedly harassed for dowry and lodged a report against the applicant, eventually leaving her matrimonial home on 09.05.2022 and residing with her parents. The applicant denied allegations of cruelty and asserted that she left the house on her own will, refusing to resume conjugal life despite his efforts, including attempts at reconciliation through the Sahu Samaj. He further contended that he works as a temporary teacher at Saraswati Shishu Mandir, earning Rs. 2,000/- per month and is dependent on his parents, whereas in cross-examination the wife admitted to earning about Rs. 10,000/- per month through sewing, knitting, and tuition work. Despite these facts, the Family Court, vide order dated 03.01.2024, directed maintenance in favour of the wife and child, aggrieving the applicant and giving rise to the present criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on facts and suffers from non-application of mind. The learned Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents on record, including the fact that the applicant is merely working as a temporary teacher earning around Rs. 2,000/- per month and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged and ailing mother along with other family members. The maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month awarded (Rs. 2,000/- to non-applicant No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- to non-applicant No.2) is exorbitant considering his meagre income and family responsibilities. It is further submitted that non-applicant No.1 voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufÏcient reason, refused to resume cohabitation despite repeated efforts for reconciliation, and admitted during cross-examination that she earns approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month through sewing, knitting, and tuition work. The Family Court failed to consider these crucial aspects and the overall financial condition of the applicant, thereby passing an excessive and unsustainable order which deserves to be set aside or suitably reduced.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-

applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, (C.G.).

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by non-applicant No.1 and awarded maintenance in favour of her and the minor child. The Court correctly held that the marriage between the parties was duly proved and that the wife was residing separately due to valid reasons of cruelty an