1 2025:CGHC:43370 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 719 of 2019 Kamlesh Dwivedi S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi Aged About 42 Years R/o Amarkantak, Para Mohalla, Near Narmada Mandir, Bhakt Niwas Dharmshala, Amarkantak, Tahsil Pushprajgarh, Thana - Amarkantak, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh., District : Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Neelu Pandey W/o Kamlesh Dwivedi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Lokhandi, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Thana Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the learned court below and set aside the impugned order dated 06/03/2019 passed by the court below and allow this Revision in the favor of applicant in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, alleging that after marriage the applicant ill-treated and deserted her, for which an offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered at P.S. Amarkantak. She further stated that she is unemployed, whereas the applicant possesses agricultural land and earns as a Purohit. The applicant, in reply, denied these allegations and submitted that the respondent is highly educated (M.A., LL.B., Computer Diploma), had been employed as a Teacher and later as TTE at Anuppur Railway Station drawing Rs.45,000–50,000/- per month, and is presently practicing as an Advocate at Bilaspur District Court earning Rs.25,000–30,000/- per month, besides additional income of Rs.25,000–30,000/- each from tuitions and tailoring/embroidery, thereby having a monthly income of about Rs.80,000–90,000/-. Supporting documents were also filed. However, the Family Court initially granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and, after considering evidence and hearing, finally directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance along with Rs.500/- as cost of proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as the family Court failed to properly consider the pleadings, reply and documents filed by the applicant, and has not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective. The 3 Court erred in the interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C., particularly overlooking sub-section (4), which disentitles maintenance to a wife who is living separately without sufficient cause or by mutual consent. It wrongly presumed the income of the applicant as a Purohit without any proof, though the respondent neither filed any document regarding his income nor discharged her burden of proof. On the other hand, the applicant produced documents showing that the respondent is highly qualified (M.A., LL.B., Computer Course), has admitted her education, and is practicing as an Advocate at District Court Bilaspur earning Rs.25,000–30,000/- per month apart from other sources of income, thereby not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court ignored these facts, as well as the applicant’s financial responsibilities towards his sick parents and family, and further failed to consider that the respondent had herself deserted the applicant and lodged false criminal cases. The case also suffers from lack of clear pleadings on maintainability, jurisdiction and limitation. Hence, the order is improper, incorrect and against the settled principles of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, after considering the pleadings, evidence and submissions of both parties, has rightly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. The Court duly took note of the allegations of ill-treatment and desertion, as well as the fact that an offence under Section 498-A IPC had 4 been registered against the applicant and his family. While the respondent claimed to be unemployed and without independent means, the applicant attempted to demonstrate that she was highly qualified and engaged in various sources of income, however, the learned Family Court, on proper appreciation of the materials placed before it, was pleased to grant interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and thereafter, by the impugned order, directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance along with Rs.500/- towards cost of proceedings. The said order reflects due consideration of the evidence on record and the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., namely to prevent destitution and vagrancy of a deserted wife. 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan