1 2025:CGHC:48595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 265 of 2021 Rajkumar Sahu, S/o Shri Samaylal, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Davna, Police Station And Tehsil - Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Subhadra, W/o Rajkumar, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Kedarpur, Police Station And Tehsil - Premnagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order passed on 22.01.2021 in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 538/2019, between “Subhadra Vs. Rajkumar Sahu” and liability fasten against the applicant be quashed in toto, and allow the criminal revision, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.23 11:15:26 +0530 2 applicant seeking maintenance. The brief facts of their case are that the respondent is the wife of the applicant. She has pleaded in her application that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized according to Hindu rites in the year 2012. It is further alleged by the respondent that after marriage she initially lived peacefully with the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant started beating her and demanded dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and one motorcycle. She further pleaded that after some time, they shifted to Ambikapur and resided there. Even at Ambikapur, the applicant again threatened her and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle, and further stated that if she failed to fulfill his demand, he would kill her. Due to this harassment, the respondent went back to her parental house and has since been residing there. In the meantime, the applicant obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce and did not provide any maintenance to the respondent. She further pleaded that she had filed a case of domestic violence against the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, wherein it was ordered that the applicant should pay Rs. 500/- per month. Against this order, the applicant preferred an appeal, which was allowed, and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate was set aside. The respondent further pleaded that she has no source of income and is incapable of earning money, whereas the applicant is employed as a Peon in a Nursing College and earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is further pleaded that the applicant has been negligent towards her and has failed to provide any care. Hence, the respondent prayed for a maintenance allowance of Rs. 8,000/- per month. 4. The applicant, in his reply to the application, denied all the averments made by the respondent. He submitted that he had filed a divorce petition which was allowed, and an ex-parte decree was passed against the 3 respondent. He further contended that in her reply to the divorce petition, the respondent had given her consent to the divorce, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. He also submitted that the order of the Judicial Magistrate granting maintenance was set aside in appeal. 5. Learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, allowed the application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the order. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order against the settled principles of law, and hence, the same is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. He submits that learned Family Court has committed a grave error in not considering the averment that the respondent had given her consent for divorce, and an ex-parte decree of divorce was passed against her. Learned Family Court has seriously erred in not considering the fact that the respondent is not residing with the applicant without any cogent reason. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the applicant. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider that the respondent herself left the house of the aopplicant without any justification, and the applicant never compelled her to do so. Therefore, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by 4 this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek