1 2025:CGHC:27710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 592 of 2019 Indal Ram Verma S/o Late Bisaru Ram Verma (S/o Bihari Verma), Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kurra, Post Bangoli, Police Station Kharora, Tahsil Tilda, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Kejbati Verma W/o Indal Ram Verma Aged About 67 Years R/o Through Toman Lal Verma, R/o Village Mungi, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.414/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC of the respondent/wife and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:46:59 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is legally married wife and marriage has taken place in the year 1965 and out of their wedlock, five daughters have been born and on account of birth of daughters, the applicant/husband had assaulted and turn out from the home and since in the application filed before the Family Court, the wife has stated that after the desertion of wife from the year 2006 and after she turned out from the year 2006, she has been living separately from the last so many years, but she has no other means of substance and on the contrary the applicant, though in the application of wife the age mentioned there is 67 years but the applicant has 10 acres of irrigated land and his own house from where he is getting monthly income 40,000-50,000/- per month, therefore she made a prayer for grant of Rs.15000/- per months from the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary, improper and liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has not properly looked into the reply nor the evidence adduced by the applicant and since the wife has herself deserted the husband and living separately and therefore according to the law, there is no justification for the grant of maintenance as per order dated 21-02-2019. Since the evidence adduced by the respondent/wife, where she stated that all daughters have been married and the marriage of daughter has been done and also stated in the evidence that she is being looked after by younger daughter and also stated that from last 10 years, she has been living separately and she did not file any document in respect of income of applicant and also did not say regarding the income of applicant to the counsel and 3 therefore taking into consideration of statement of wife together with the statement of Ram Kumar Dewangan, there was material on record to indicate before the learned Family Court to grant the maintenance in favour of wife and against the applicant and also because of this reason that the amount of Rs.2000/- is higher side and since the applicant does not earn any amount, therefore cannot be able to grant the maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent is the wife of the applicant, in such a situation it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the respondent and on this basis the respondent is eligible to get maintenance from the applicant. The respondent has requested for maintenance from the date of application, but the respondent accepts maintenance through her younger and elder daughter. So in such a situation she cannot be considered destitute and it does not seem appropriate to provide maintenance to the applicant from the date of application. Consequently, on the basis of the above conclusions, the application submitted by the respondent is accepted and keeping in view the social and economic conditions of both the parties, especially while the respondent is also being maintained by her daughters, it is ordered that the applicant is to pay 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent Kejbati Verma vide order dated 21.02. 2019 and will pay Rs. 500/- separately as expenditure in this case. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the said order. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 4 the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the 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