1 2025:CGHC:31290 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 353 of 2021 Tejram Deshmukh, S/o Khorbahara Ram Deshmukh, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Shyamnagar, Risali, Ward No. 61, Near Higher Secondary School Risali, Police Station Nevai, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Varsha Deshmukh W/o Tejram Deshmukh, Aged About 32 Years R/o. 5 Building, Quarter No. H-2 / B-38, Sadak No. 06, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh., 2. Ku. Yana Deshmukh, D/o Tejram Deshmukh, Aged About 9 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Varsha Deshmukh, R/o. 5 Building, Quarter No. H-2 / B-38, Sadak No. 06, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh., 3. Purva Deshmukh, D/o Tejram Deshmukh, Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Varsha Deshmukh, R/o. 5 Building, Quarter No. H-2 / B-38, Sadak No. 06, Tahsil and District Durg Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 13:45:17 +0530 2 the impugned order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.1193/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 4,000/- to the applicant No.2/daughter and Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.3/son, (total Rs. 12,000/-) as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court in Durg, seeking maintenance. The applicant (husband) and respondent No. 1 (wife) married on 11.05.2006, and had two children. The wife alleged that the husband was a habitual drunkard who regularly assaulted and beat her, and his family members restricted her social interactions, criticized her for bringing insufficient dowry, and doubted her character. She claimed these circumstances forced her to leave her matrimonial home, leaving the children with the husband. The husband denied these allegations in his written statement, stating that he never demanded dowry or quarreled with his wife. He alleged that the wife falsely accused his father and willfully left his house to live with her parents. He also claimed that the wife had an illicit relationship with another person and left his house voluntarily. The Family Court ruled in favor of the respondents, granting a total maintenance of ₹12,000 per month (₹6,000 to the wife, ₹4,000 to child No. 2, and ₹2,000 to child No. 3). The husband has filed this revision petition challenging the maintenance award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order impugned dated 18-03-2021 is illegal, invalid, unmindful, contrary to the 3 law and procedure suffering from illegality and perversity and hence it is liable to be set-aside. The respondent No.1 has left the house of applicant on her will and wished. The applicant tried several times to took her wife, but he failed. The wife has illicit relation with another person, namely, Gunpalli Vijaybabu and therefore she does not want to live with her husband. The wife herself stated and accepted that she is illicit relationship with another person, namely, Gunpalli Vijaybabu. The fact is evident from the letter/statement written by the wife and other documents. The applicant/husband has also filed the affidavit of assets and liabilities of non-agrarian dependents and personal information. Further, in the provision of Section 125 (4) of CRPC, no wife shall be entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. The wife herself left the house of her husband. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the respondent/husband has mentioned his monthly income to be around Rs 42,000/- but no such document has been presented in this regard. The burden of proving how much salary the respondent receives was also on the respondent. He himself could have presented his pay-slip or other documents related to salary, but he has not done so, hence it will be presumed that his income is more than Rs 42,000/- and hence he is capable of maintaining the applicants. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 4 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