1 2025:CGHC:34646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 357 of 2023 Krishna Kumar Dhruv S/o Ratiram Dhruv Aged About 34 Years R/o Gram Pachotiya, P.S. Jarhagav, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Gendika Singh W/o Krishna Kumar Dhruv Aged About 34 Years R/o Halmukam Rajmahal Colony, Ward No. 9, Kawardha, P.S. And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.07/2018, 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 partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent moved an application PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.22 19:19:18 +0530 2 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court whereby the learned Family Court partially allowed the application of the respondent and granted her maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of false contour of facts presented by the respondent and without considering the evidences submitted by the applicant and passed the order only on the basis of assumption and presumption. The respondent in her application averted that her father had given various goods worth about two lakh rupees and gold & silver ornaments in marriage, Apart from this, Rs. 50,000/- in cash was given to buy a motor cycle and Rs. 50,000/- in cash after the engagement. After the marriage, the respondent went to her in-laws village in Pachotiya. The applicant was posted as a lecturer in village Kotia, therefore after a week, the applicant took the respondent with him to his place of posting at Premnagar. There the applicant started torturing the respondent in the name of dowry and used to ask her father to bring five lakh rupees. The respondent stayed with the applicant for about 15-20 days, during which she came to know that the applicant was in love with some other girl. The applicant told all these things to his parents and sister Babita when he came to his maternal home. After about 20 days, the respondent went to her in-laws house again and the applicant kept her in PremNagar for about five days, then the applicant along with his brother took the respondent to her maternal village Mahadevgarh and said that he will not keep her until she brings five lakh rupees. The respondent alleged dowry demands and torture, claiming the applicant earned Rs. 25,000 monthly and had additional income from land. The applicant denied these allegations, stating the respondent left without notice and that he wanted to reconcile. He also claimed the respondent was earning and had a wealthy background. The court allegedly based its decision on assumptions rather 3 than evidence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal, bad in law, and contrary to evidence. The Family Court failed to properly consider the evidence presented. The respondent deserted the applicant without reason, despite efforts to reconcile. He further submits that maintenance cannot be granted if the wife lives separately without sufficient reason, as per Section 125(4) CrPC. The applicant has made efforts to stay with the respondent, including organizing a social meeting. The respondent refused to stay with the applicant and deserted the matrimonial home. The respondent is well- educated (M.A. degree) and capable of earning, thus not entitled to maintenance. A capable spouse choosing to remain idle should not burden the other spouse with maintenance. The Family Court's judgment is contrary to evidence and law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that it is an undisputed position in the case that the applicant is working as a lecturer and he himself has admitted in cross-examination that he gets a salary of forty to forty-two thousand rupees and he also has agricultural land, whereas the respondent has no source of income of her own. The applicant has presented his salary slip, according to which his gross salary in December 2022 is Rs 58,962/- and net salary is Rs 53,466/-. The respondent helps his brother and maternal uncle and maternal aunt. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the need of the respondent, the means of income of the applicant and his other liabilities etc., it would be appropriate that the respondent should be given a 4 maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the applicant for her maintenance. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti