1 2025:CGHC:32963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 381 of 2021 Bajrang Das S/o Mantu Das Mahant Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Indalbhantha (Tarda), Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Seema Mahant W/o Shri Bajran Das Aged About 25 Years D/o Sukrit Das, R/o Village Junvani (Bhaisama), Thana Urga, Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1.That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.17 10:50:53 +0530 2 allow this revision and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.03.2021 (annexure A/1) passed in the Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 85/2019. 3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in the favour of the applicant as it may deem to fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the cases.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant. The marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 25.04.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that the applicant was demanding dowry, using vulgar language, and sometimes physically assaulting the respondent. Therefore, the respondent left the applicant’s house on 17.08.2015 and started residing with her parents at Bhaisma, District Korba (C.G.). 4. The applicant filed a reply to the application filed by the respondent, denying her allegations and taking the plea that the respondent wanted to live separately and left the applicant’s house without any reason. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay maintenance. 5. The applicant also filed an application under Section 13(1)(i-A)(i-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Family Court seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent. After 3 considering the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 13(1)(i-A)(i-B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in favour of the applicant. After the decree of divorce was passed on 05.12.2019, the impugned maintenance order was passed. 6. On 12.03.2021, the learned Family Court passed an order in favour of the respondent, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent . The learned Family Court has wrongly considered the case of the respondent. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant has preferred the instant revision seeking to set aside the order dated 12-03-2021 (Annexure A/1) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 85/2019. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse based on evidence, and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from factual and legal infirmities. The divorce decree granted by the learned Family Court was on the ground that the wife of the applicant had not lived with him for a long time without any valid reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant, which is evident from the divorce decree dated 05.12.2019, already marked as Annexure A/2. He further submits that the financial condition of the applicant is not sound; therefore, he is unable to pay any amount to the respondent. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. 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 respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek