1 2025:CGHC:27703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 652 of 2019 Smt. Sheetal Patil W/o Sandeep Patil Aged About 30 Years R/o House Of Late Shekar Tabane, Quarter No. 14/b Now 13 B, Railway Colony, Bhilai 03, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., ... Applicant versus Sandeep Patil S/o Chandulal Patil Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 08, In Front Of Boudh Vihar, Motipur, Ramnagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Presiding Judge, Family Court Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.236/2017, whereby the learned Family Court was rejected the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant/wife for grant of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 6/2/2013, but due to physical incapability of the respondent, and on the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.26 12:47:00 +0530 2 assurance, that soon he will take the treatment, the applicant stay with the respondent for the period of one year. There was no change nor the respondent get himself treated. The respondent always used to harass physically and mentally to the applicant. The respondent is the Area Manager in Multinational Company and is earning Rs.60,000-70,000/- per month and is holding the car and was earning more than Rs. 7,00,000/-. On the overall standard of living of the respondent, the applicant, claim Rs. 20,000 per month maintenance from the respondent under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the ground that applicant is harassing and committing cruelty towards applicant. The respondent filed the reply and denied the contention of the applicant. The applicant had tried his level best, to have a cool atmosphere in the home, but the respondent, had not change himself. Initially, an interim maintenance of Rs. 4000 was granted, but with the intention not to pay the maintenance, the respondent had taken applicant with him and just after the period of one month again left the applicant, hence, the application for maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no definite source of earning and respondent is earning huge amount from multinational company and it is well settled law, that wife is entitled for live in the same standard as the husband is living. Hence, the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- is just and proper and applicant is entitled for the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3 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 applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant/wife is living separately from the respondent without any proper and sufficient reason. On the basis of the applicant's highly educated status, it cannot be said that she is completely incapable of supporting herself. As a result, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected under the application filed by the applicant. 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. 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