1 2025:CGHC:37950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 460 of 2021 Ajay Sharma S/o Chandrashekhar Sharma Aged About 39 Years Resident of LIG 59, Sharda Vihar Colony, Near Railway Crossing Balco Road, Korba , Police Station Transport Nagar (City Kotwali), Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Anju Sharma W/o Ajay Sharma Aged About 33 Years Resident of Subhash Ward Bhatapara, Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara , District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Sanhavi Sharma Daughter of Ajay Sharma , Aged About 2 Years And 6 Months, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Anju Sharma Wife of Ajay Sharma, Resident of Subhash Ward Bhatapara , Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.04 11:06:31 +0530 2 impugned order dated 23.11.2020, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that the marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 29.11.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born on 08.03.2013. It was alleged that one month after the birth of respondent No. 2, the applicant ousted respondent No. 1 from his house, due to which she went to her parental home, and since then, the respondents have been residing there. It was further submitted by the respondents that the applicant is working in A.T. Tiles & Marketing Private Company and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying the allegations, except for the admitted facts. He briefly submitted that he never ousted respondent No. 1. In fact, respondent No. 1 was pressurizing the applicant to live at her parental home, which he refused. Consequently, respondent No. 1 voluntarily left her matrimonial home and has been living at her parental house without any reasonable cause. The applicant made several sincere efforts to bring back the respondents, but respondent No. 1 refused to return to the applicant’s house. Therefore, since she is living separately without any justifiable reason, she is not entitled to maintenance. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 23.11.2020, the learned Family Court allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, respectively — totaling Rs. 7,000/- per month — to the respondents 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 3 23.11.2020 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted respondent No. 1. In fact, it was respondent No. 1 who was pressurizing the applicant to reside at her parental home, which the applicant refused. Consequently, respondent No. 1 voluntarily left her matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental house without any reasonable cause. He further submits that learned Family Court has failed to consider that the applicant made several sincere efforts to bring back the respondents, but respondent No. 1 refused to return to the applicant’s home. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is living separately without any justifiable cause, and hence, is not entitled to maintenance. He also submits that even the quantum of maintenance awarded under the impugned order is excessive and on the higher side, and therefore deserves to be set aside/quashed. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek