1 2025:CGHC:27718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 399 of 2019 Chitrabhan S/o Yudhishthir Aged About 39 Years Caste Kanwar, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o Village Jampara, Bodar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikuntpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Kanti Bai W/o Chitrabhan Aged About 33 Years D/o Late John Sai, Caste Kanwar, Occupation Housewife, R/o Budar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikuntpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2. Vinay Durga Prasad S/o Chitrabhan Aged About 6 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Kanti Bai, W/o Chitrabhan, R/o Budar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikuntpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant on I.A. No. 01/2019 which is an application for condonation of delayof 450 ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:43:10 +0530 2 days in filing instant criminal revision. 2. Fro the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 01/2019 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2017, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Baikuthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), seeking grant of maintenance. It was submitted by the respondents that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 25.12.2006, and out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born. After one year of marriage, the applicant started assaulting respondent No. 1 and demanded a share in the ancestral land. It was further contended by the respondents that the applicant even tried to kill respondent No. 1 by giving her an electric shock and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial house. As a result, she has been residing at her parental home. It was also stated that the applicant has a source of income but has not paid a single penny towards the maintenance of the respondents. Therefore, they filed the application seeking maintenance. 3 5. After being served the notice, the applicant filed his reply and submitted that he never subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty over any demand for agricultural land. He specifically stated that respondent No. 1 is living separately on her own will, without any reasonable cause. The applicant tried his best to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to return. He further claimed that he has no source of income, and since respondent No. 1 is living separately without any justifiable reason, she is not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 21.09.2017, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondents towards their maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.09.2017 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, it is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and did not return despite several efforts made by the applicant. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that while residing in her matrimonial home, respondent No. 1 used to misbehave with and mentally torture the applicant and his parents. The learned Family Court did not appreciate the fact that respondent No. 1 is a healthy woman and has an independent source of income sufficient for her survival. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant is engaged in labor work and is barely able to maintain himself. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 4 maintenance awarded in favor of the respondents is excessive and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 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 applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by 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