1 2025:CGHC:32639 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 575 of 2020 Smt. Jaymuni Nag W/o Duryodhan Nag Aged About 36 Years R/o Fittingpara, Kadro, Police Station- Bagbahar, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) At Present Resident Of Khadamacha, Police Station- Bagbahar, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Duryodhan Nag S/o Dhan Singh Nag Aged About 38 Years R/o Fittingpara, Kadro, Police Station- Bagbahar, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.02.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.41/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and directed the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that both parties have submitted a compromise application, stating that they wish to live in a harmonious environment and establish a cordial relationship. The respondent has agreed to pay the applicant a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The compromise has been made voluntarily without any coercion or pressure. Therefore, it is requested that the case be disposed of based on the compromise. The applicant has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance from the respondent. It is stated that the applicant and the respondent got married in April 1993 according to their customs. After the marriage, the applicant started living with her husband and his family at their home. However, in July 2003, a report was lodged against the respondent alleging rape, and he was sent to jail. The applicant got her husband released on bail after three to four months, and he was acquitted of the charges. In 2014, the respondent married another woman, Mohanti Nag, and took her as his second wife, while expelling the applicant from his house. The respondent has been negligent in providing maintenance to the applicant. The applicant is a homemaker with no source of income, whereas the respondent is a government employee, working as a teacher, and also has ancestral agricultural land, from which he earns an annual income of approximately Rs. 3 5,00,000/- or more. Considering the current cost of living, the applicant requests that the respondent be directed to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The applicant also seeks Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the crucial aspects that the respondent is a government teacher and owner of agricultural land, he earns a substantial annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/- or more as per the current cost of living, Rs. 5,000/- per month is insufficient for a woman's fundamental requirements, including food, clothing, personal care, and accommodation and these factors should have been taken into account when determining the maintenance amount. He also submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never made any compromise and the compromise applicant filed by the respondent is forged and fabricated. 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 parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance observing that both parties were counseled about reconciliation. They expressed their willingness to settle the matter and submitted a compromise application signed by both parties. Upon inquiry, both parties confirmed that they had entered into the compromise voluntarily. According to the compromise, the respondent would pay the applicant a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Given that the applicant had filed the petition seeking maintenance and both parties had agreed to the compromise, therefore the compromise application submitted by both parties is accepted by the Family Court and the respondent is directed to pay the applicant a monthly maintenance as aforementioned. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the 5 concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil