1 2025:CGHC:27433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 480 of 2018 Sachin Gangole S/o Satyanarayan Gangole Aged About 32 Years R/o Village G/06 Tawa Colony, Timrani, District Harda M. P. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Nidhi Gangole W/o Sachin Gangole Aged About 30 Years R/o Through B.L. Namdev, Gitanjali Nagar, Gali No. 4, Kashyap Colony, Karbala Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Lavkumar Gangole S/o Sachin Gangole Aged About 2 Years Being Minor Through The Natural Guardian Mother Respondent No.1 Namely Smt. Nidhi Gangole, R/o Through B. L. Namdev, Gitanjali Nagar, Gali No. 4, Kashyap Colony, Karbala Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.25 19:16:32 +0530 2 “ It is, therefore, prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be allow the revision and set aside/quashed the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 07/2016, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the applicant. The brief facts stated by the respondents in their application are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.03.2011 as per traditions and customs. Thereafter, respondent No.1 began residing at her matrimonial home, and the couple was blessed with a child. It is further alleged that after some time of the marriage, the applicant started torturing respondent No.1. His behavior towards her was not good, and on several occasions, he physically assaulted her. Therefore, she started living separately and filed an application for maintenance. The applicant filed a reply to the application, denying all the allegations made against him. The Family Court was kind enough to award a total amount of Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance to the respondents — Rs. 3,000/- to each. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of maintenance is illegal and contrary to law; therefore, it is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed by this Court. She submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 has not proved any valid reason to live separately; therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. The learned Family Court did not consider that the present revisionist has filed a civil suit under Section 3 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is unwilling to live with respondent No.1. She also submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No.1 is a well-educated lady who is capable of maintaining herself, and she is living separately without any valid reason. Thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the financial condition of the present revisionist is not sound, and his income has not been proved in the present case. Despite this, an excessive amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance, which deserves to be reduced. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant in the present revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Family Court. 7. 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 respondents cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek