1 2025:CGHC:34970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 89 of 2023 Prafull Bhainsare S/o Late Krishna Bhainsare, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mudhipar, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Unita Bhainsare W/o Prafull Bhainsare, Aged About 29 Years Presently Residing Through Father Lakhan Lal Nandeshwar, Ganganagar, Near Durga Mandir, Khamtarai, Police Station Khamtarai, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and the impugned order dated 22/11/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), in Criminal M.C.C. No. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 299/2022, may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant, wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance, alleging that after her marriage to the applicant- husband in 2011 at Raipur, she was harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law for insufficient dowry, and was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home on 04.11.2019, forcing her to live with her parents. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations and claimed that he was, in fact, subjected to cruelty by the non- applicant, who assaulted his family members and threatened them with false dowry cases. He contended that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily and refused to return despite several efforts. Subsequently, he filed a divorce petition, and the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, granted him an ex parte divorce decree on 22.10.2021. He further submitted that the non-applicant is capable of maintaining herself through tailoring work and that he has since remarried. In compliance with Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, he filed an affidavit disclosing his income of ₹20,000 per month as a Chaukidar, with ₹8,000 deducted toward loan repayments, leaving him ₹12,000 to support his widowed mother, siblings, and new wife. After considering both sides, the learned Family Court granted ₹6,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the non-applicant- wife, which is now under challenge in this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from 3 gross illegality and is contrary to both law and the evidence available on record. The Court failed to appreciate that the applicant does not have sufficient means to pay ₹6,000/- per month as maintenance, which is an excessive and unjustified amount considering his financial condition. He is employed as a Chaukidar with a monthly income of ₹20,000/-, out of which ₹8,000/- is deducted toward loan repayments, leaving him with only ₹12,000/- to support his widowed mother, siblings, and newly wedded wife. Furthermore, the Family Court had already granted a decree of divorce in favour of the applicant on 22.10.2021, thereby dissolving the marital relationship, a fact that the Court below failed to properly consider. Additionally, the non-applicant is willfully residing with her parents and is capable of maintaining herself through tailoring work. Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be determined on the basis of the factual matrix of each case, and the learned Court erred by not moulding the relief in accordance with the surrounding circumstances and the financial responsibilities of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court granting ₹6,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the non-applicant-wife is just, fair, and in accordance with the law. Despite the applicant’s contentions regarding the divorce decree and his limited financial capacity, the Court rightly considered that the non-applicant-wife was ousted 4 from her matrimonial home and left to fend for herself, and that the divorce was granted ex parte, without her participation. The obligation to maintain a wife does not automatically cease upon divorce, especially when the wife is unable to sustain herself. The Court took into account the applicant’s income, family responsibilities, and the overall circumstances of both parties while determining a reasonable amount. The maintenance awarded ensures that the non-applicant-wife is not left destitute and upholds the objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. Hence, the Family Court’s order stands as legally sound and equitably balanced. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan