1 2025:CGHC:32640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 571 of 2020 Yogesh Kumar Rathore S/o Vishram Singh Rathore, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Faguram, P.S. Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sunanda Rathore W/o Yogesh Kumar Rathore, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rank P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Yogeshwari Rathore Aged About 6 Months, (Minor) Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sunanda Rathore W/o Yogesh Kumar Rathore, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Rank P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondents : None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this revision when the case is called out of hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.16 10:50:18 +0530 2 following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed by the learned Family Court in M.J.C. No. 524/2018, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant, stating inter alia that after marriage, the husband started treating her with cruelty. The respondent No. 01 tried to adjust with the hope that the applicant would change his behaviour in the future, but he did not. Therefore, she left the matrimonial home and is now residing at her parental home. Since the respondent has no source of income and is unemployed, she is unable to maintain herself and her child. The applicant/husband has sufficient sources of income, and his father owns agricultural land. In view of the above, the applicant is capable of maintaining the respondent, and she requires maintenance from the applicant/husband. 5. After receiving notice, the applicant filed a reply to the application, denying all the allegations and stating that he has not committed any cruelty. The respondent No. 01, of her own will, went to her parental home and deserted the applicant. The applicant tried to bring the respondent No. 01applicant to his house, but she refused to return. The applicant’s mother is suffering from paralysis, and the respondent No. 01 did not want to look after her. She continuously 3 pressurized the applicant to live separately, which led to daily quarrels, and ultimately, the respondent No. 01 left the matrimonial home of her own will. The respondent No. 01 has committed cruelty upon the applicant by pressurizing him to live separately from his mother and thereafter leaving his house of her own will. 6. The respondent No. 01 had filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but she did not return to the applicant and refused to reside with him. The applicant also filed an application before the SDM, Janjgir, to bring back the respondent No. 01, but she refused to return and gave a statement that she wants to reside separately of her own will. The applicant has no stable source of income and is earning only Rs. 4,500/- per month by working as a helper and khalasi. Therefore, the applicant prayed for the rejection of the application. 7. As per the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 20.03.2020, allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 01 and awarded Rs. 1,800/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,200/- per month to respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent No. 01 herself deserted the applicant by making false allegations and committed cruelty upon the applicant. During her statement before the learned trial court, the respondent No. 01 admitted that she 4 does not want to look after her mother-in-law and the two sons (born from the applicant’s first marriage). She also admitted that she wants more children from the present wedlock, but the applicant refused, stating that he already has three children. He further submits that it is pertinent to mention here that no complaint was ever made against the applicant regarding harassment or cruelty before the police or any other court. The respondent has suppressed the fact that the applicant has two minor children from his first marriage. He also submits that the respondent No. 01/wife is residing separately of her own will, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He submits that the applicant has to maintain his mother, who is suffering from paralysis, and his two minor children, while his income is only Rs. 4,500/- per month. The learned Family Court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondents, leaving the applicant with only Rs. 1,500/- for his own and his family’s sustenance, making it impossible for him to survive. The respondent has also admitted that she has received training in sewing work and is earning. He submits that learned Family Court has not appreciated the case of the applicant in a proper manner and has committed an error by allowing the application. The learned Family Court has awarded an excessive amount to respondent No. 2. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering 5 the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek