1 2025:CGHC:28630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 363 of 2019 Girdhari Lal S/o Late Darshan Lal Aged About 59 Years Office Address Personal No. 5362, Designation A. G. M. Department Of P. L. E. M. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh Permanent Address Girdhari Lal S/o Late Darshan Lal Through Prabha Sarde W/o Vaman Rao Sarde, Plot No. 21/12 Adjacent To Sai Mangalam Vidut Nagar, Borsi, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Gomati Devi W/o Girdhari Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Block No. 182/11, Street No. 20-C, Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhiali, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.478/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 and directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amount from the applicant, she stated in her application that the marriage of applicant and non-applicant was solemnized 30 years ago and as there was extra marital relation of applicant husband with his sister-in-law therefore she left him and counseling was held between the parties and as per compromise, the applicant used to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to the respondent wife. After receiving of notice, the applicant appeared before the trial Court and filed his reply and stated that he was kicked out by his wife and sons and the above incident was reported in police station Newai but the concerned police station did not take any action against the respondent wife and since then the wife is residing in house constructed by the applicant and the applicant has to live else where. He further submitted that as per counseling he is paying Rs. 7000/- per month to the respondent wife apart from providing a shelter. On the basis of pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned trial Court framed two issues and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is entitled to get maintenance to a tune of Rs.15,000/- and did not considered the case of applicant, hence this revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of learned Family Court is bad on facts and as well as on law. As per status of applicant he is a retired person and he has no sufficient means of earning and he has already distributed his retiral benefit to his children moreover the house constructed by him is being used by the wife. The learned Family Court should have seen that since very long time, the applicant is paying Rs. 7,000/- to his wife, therefore the grant of maintenance of huge amount of Rs. 15,000/- is not sustainable in eyes of law. Further, the respondent- wife is residing with her major sons and they are also taking care of her therefore the amount awarded is very higher side is liable to be set- aside. The applicant borrowed loan from various department to construct house and he has to pay huge amount for repayment of the loan and this fact has not been considered by the learned trial Court while granting the maintenance amount. 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4 filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent observing that according to the service certificate, the applicant has retired from the post of Assistant General Manager, from which, it is clear that the applicant must have been receiving a good salary. As such, considering the social and economic status of both the parties, the learned trial Court ordered that applicant will pay Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand rupees) per month to the respondent / wife as maintenance from the order dated 13.02.2019, which she is entitled for and has come to the conclusion that the respondent have successfully proved her points. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil