1 2025:CGHC:35737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 28 of 2021 Ishwar Son Of Rambadan Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o. Sanwaranwa, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Krishna Wife Of Ishwar Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Sanwaranwa, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), At Present R/o. Village Dharsedi, Police Station And Tahsil Odgi, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.350/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage of applicant with respondent took place 15 years ago according to Hindu customs and rituals. The couple has three children from their marital life. The applicant is addicted to intoxicants and has been physically abusing the respondent since the birth of their eldest child, demanding that she bring Rs.2,00,000/- from her parental home. The respondent brought Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and gave it to the applicant, but despite this, his behavior did not improve. Two years ago, the applicant's father molested the respondent, and she filed a report. The applicant and his father assured her that they would not repeat such behavior, and the respondent compromised. However, subsequently, the applicant physically abused her and threw her out of the house, and she has been living with her parents since then. During the pendency of this case, the applicant has taken another woman, Dopati, as his wife and is living with her. He is not providing maintenance to the respondent, who is unable to support herself. The applicant owns a grocery store, earning an annual income of Rs.2,00,000/- and has 10 acres of agricultural land, earning an additional Rs.200,000/- annually. He also earns Rs.1,00,000/- from raising cows and buffaloes. The respondent requests that the applicant be ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to her. Thereafter, applicant 3 field reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has left the applicant's house of his own accord and volition. The applicant has made several attempts to bring his wife back, but he has been unsuccessful. Further, the applicant/husband further stated that they have three children, all of whom are living with him. Therefore, wife does not deserve any kind of maintenance. He further submits that the applicant never demanded dowry nor quarreled with his wife as alleged. The wife has made a false complaint against his father and has willfully left his house to live with her parents. Moreover, the wife has an illicit relationship with another person and therefore does not want to live with her husband. 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the fact that it has been established through the 4 applicant's testimony that the respondent is indeed the wife of the applicant and is living separately from him. Furthermore, the voter ID card and other documents (Exhibit P-2) corroborate the applicant's statement that the applicant has taken another woman, Dropati, as his wife and is living with her. This provides sufficient reason for the respondent to live separately from the applicant. Thus, the Family Court concluded that respondent is entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil