1 2025:CGHC:28159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 752 of 2018 Amrit S/o Baburaj Aged About 32 Years Caste Gond R/o Chhipchhipi, P. S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Sonmati W/o Amrit Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond R/o Village Bundeli, P. S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 05.02.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.84/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the applicant, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that their marriage was solemnized through customary rituals seven years prior. She stated that they lived happily initially but began experiencing marital discord due to their inability to conceive, leading to physical abuse by the applicant. Eventually, the applicant started living with another woman and refused to cohabitate with the respondent, forcing her to live separately. The respondent sought a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000, citing her inability to maintain herself and the applicant's substantial income of Rs.4 lakhs per annum and ownership of approximately 7 acres of land. In response, the applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed a written statement denying the allegations. He claimed that the respondent lived separately without sufficient reason and had a history of leaving the matrimonial home without informing him. He stated that Panchayats were conducted, and the respondent had tendered written apologies. The applicant also contended that he earned only Rs.3,000 per month and that the property mentioned by the respondent was joint family property. After considering the evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the respondent's 3 application and granted her a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- from February 2018. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant / husband's defense was duly proved, and the respondent / wife's claim about the husband's income was not substantiated. Moreover, the wife was living separately without sufficient reason, which dis-entitles her to maintenance. He further submits that the Family Court overlooked the fact that the husband is willing to cohabitate with the wife, and a Panchayat was previously conducted to resolve their issues. Instead, the wife chose to live separately, and there is evidence to suggest that she is capable of maintaining herself. Given these circumstances, the applicant / husband prays for the impugned order dated 05.02.2018, granting maintenance to the respondent / wife, to be set aside. 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the fact that repondent has no source of income and is not engaged in any work, while the applicant is not contributing to her maintenance. The applicant is physically capable and owns agricultural land, 4 indicating that he earns an income, although the exact amount is not proven. However, for the purpose of paying maintenance, it is sufficient that the husband is physically fit. Given these circumstances, the applicant is liable to maintain the respondent. Further, considering the minimum requirements of an average person and the current prices of essential commodities, it can be reasonably estimated that Rs.3,000 per month would be necessary. However, since the respondent is residing at her parental home and does not need to spend on separate accommodation, the Family Court came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to award her Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance from 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil