1 2025:CGHC:36526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 672 of 2023 Jai Singh S/o. Late Krishna, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Gokulpur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ram Bai W/o. Jai Singh, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Gokulpur, Current Address Umapur, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.301/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent was married to the applicant 15 years ago according to AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Hindu law, and they lived together as husband and wife. However, five months ago, the applicant started harassing the respondent, alleging that she was unable to conceive and her parents had not given dowry. He threatened to marry another woman and threw the respondent out of the house, beating and tormenting her. Despite her requests, the applicant refused to take her back and has since failed to provide for her maintenance. The respondent is now in a state of destitution, struggling to survive, while the applicant possesses significant assets, including a tractor, pickup vehicle, mini truck, grocery store, flour mill, and immovable property. His monthly income is approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-. The respondent has therefore requested that the applicant, her husband, pay her maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant filed his 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 respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Court has utterly failed to ascertain the economic condition of the applicant and has proceeded on the basis of invalid assumptions, which have significantly impacted the applicant’s life and his family's well-being. Making such assumptions without any evidence on record is highly unwarranted and unjustified. He further submits that the learned Court ought to have considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and based its findings on the material available, rather 3 than relying on conjectures and surmises. Furthermore, the Court failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by the applicant, resulting in lopsided findings that warrant scrutiny by the Court. He also submits that the issues formulated by the Court have been incorrectly determined. The applicant is unable to maintain the respondent, whereas she is an able-bodied person, fully capable of maintaining herself. It appears that she willfully left her husband without reasonable grounds or legal justification. Therefore, the court ought to have taken a benevolent view in favor of the applicant while adjudicating the application for maintenance. 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.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant, further the respondent has stated that the reason for living separately from the applicant is that he subjected her to physical abuse due to her inability to conceive and his demand for dowry. This statement remained unshaken during cross-examination. The applicant, on the other hand, claimed that the respondent was living separately of her own accord to care for her elderly mother. However, given that the respondent’s sister, Kalawati, also resides at her parental home, this defense appears implausible. Moreover, in paragraph 7 of his cross- 4 examination, the applicant admitted to having taken Gangotri as his second wife. Although the respondent did not mention this in her statement, the applicant's admission confirms that he has indeed taken a second wife, which constitutes a valid reason for the applicant to live separately from him. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that wife / respondent is entitled to maintenance. 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