1 2025:CGHC:34648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 373 of 2023 Mukund Ram Sori S/o Shri Gambhir Ram Sori Aged About 33 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kotela, Police Station Charama, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Amrita Sori W/o Mukund Ram Sori Aged About 32 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Kotela, Police Station Charama District- Kanker Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Harrathema, Tahsil/District- Balod, Chhattisgarh … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.B.Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 1.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.34/2022, 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. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. Hence, this revision. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:01:19 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking a maintenance amount that the applicant had solemnized marriage with the respondent according to Hindu Custom at Harrathema, Tahsil and District Balod in the year 2009 and after long time of marriage, the applicant and his family members have harassed and mentally tortured to the respondent in the name of less than dowry and he has demanded money from the applicant and applicant is working as Assistant Teacher and earns Rs. 34,817/-annually income and respondent has of income and hence the no any source respondent is seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the applicant in application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application. The learned Family Court after framing the issues passed the order dated 21.02.2023 of the whereby allowed the application respondent and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month for respondent. The impugned order dated 21.02.2023 is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned the Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondent has made false allegation against the applicant because after lapse of 12 years of marriage respondent was always quarreled dispute with the applicant and his family member without any sufficient reasons and also she does not like to live with the applicant with joint family member and pressured upon him to live separately and hence she is not entitled to get benefit of any maintenance amount and hence impugned maintenance is liable to be 3 quashed. It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondent on own motion left the house of the applicant without any reason, therefore he is not able to get the benefit of maintenance under the provision of section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that, the respondent has failed to prove income of the applicant whereas the his old parents have totally dependent upon the applicant, therefore the applicant has unable to pay any maintenance amount to respondent and hence impugned maintenance order is liable to be set aside /quashed. It is pertinent to mention here that, the applicant obtained Rs. 32,668/- per month as salary wherein the applicant has expenses loan amount of Rs. 12,178/- monthly as installment for treatment of the respondent and has also expenses to take care of his old parents. It is pertinent to mention here that, there is done divorce in between parties which is held in the meeting by the customary and as per social and customary practice, the respondent has done divorce, the respondent has taken divorce from the applicant and respondent is performing her duty on the post of House mother in Children-house of Singarbhata, Kanker and she obtained amount of Rs.20,000/- per months as salary due to this, she is able to maintain herself for secure life and hence she is not entitled to get benefit of any amount maintenance hence and the maintenance amount is liable to be set-aside. 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 applicant, perused the pleadings and 4 documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant is a well-off person with sufficient income and therefore, it is his legal and moral duty to contribute financially to the proper maintenance and livelihood of the respondent. Considering the social and economic circumstances, living standards and income earning capacity of both the parties, the Family Court finds it just to partially accept the application submitted by the respondent and approve minimum maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/-per month from the applicant. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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 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