1 2025:CGHC:32926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 269 of 2022 Bhola Nath Singh S/o Late Shri Ratan Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pendari, Police Station Chandani, Tahsil Odgi District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Manmati W/o Bhola Nath Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Pendari, Police Station Chandani, Tahsil Odgi , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Nasimudding Ansari with Mr. Riyazuddin Sheikh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in M.J.C No.44/2021, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been allowed and applicant has directed to pay amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:06:56 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent were married in 1989 and had two children. The respondent claimed she was subjected to cruelty and harassment throughout the marriage. In 2006, the husband allegedly assaulted her and threw her out of the house. She then lived with her parents and worked as a daily wager to support herself and her children. The respondent also alleged that her husband had an extra-marital affair with a woman named Fuleshwari, whom he kept as his concubine. She sought maintenance for her livelihood. The husband denied the allegations, claiming the wife had a habit of leaving his house and refusing to return. He stated that she chose to live separately, and due to social customs, their marriage had effectively ended. He prayed for the dismissal of the maintenance application. The Family Court awarded the respondent ₹7,000 per month in maintenance, which the husband has challenged in this revision petition, alleging that the court failed to consider the evidence properly. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court is contrary to law and evidence, and is liable to be set aside. The Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that although there is no limitation period for filing an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, the wife's application was delayed by over 15 years without any explanation, rendering the remedy ineffective. The powers under Section 125 of the CrPC are discretionary, and the court should have considered the inordinate delay in filing the application without cogent reasons. The Learned Family Court's order directing payment of ₹7,000 per month is illegal and unjustified given the circumstances. The Court failed to consider that the wife had a habit of staying at her parental house and never returned, and the husband did not desert her. The applicant seeks to set aside the impugned order. 3 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 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that it has been proved from the statement of the respondent Manmati that she is the wife of the applicant. There is a proper and sufficient reason for the respondent to live separately from the applicant. The applicant has no any source of income. It is also not proved that the applicant is providing maintenance to the respondent. The respondent has stated that the applicant is a Government teacher in Biharpur and receives a salary of Rs. 60,000/- per month. The applicant has accepted in his statement that he is a teacher but he has stated that he receives a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month. Thus, as per the applicant, it is proved that the applicant's salary is Rs. 45,000/- per month. It has been stated that his second wife, three children and his mother are dependent on the applicant. But it is the moral duty of the applicant to provide maintenance to his wife/respondent. Therefore, an application has been filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Accepting this and considering the social and economic background of both the parties and their dependency on the applicant, it is ordered that applicant should pay maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of application. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 4 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti