1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 173 of 2016 Basant Pradhan S/o Shri Motilal Pradhan, aged about 36 years By Caste: Kolta, R/o Village: Saldhih (Devari), P.S: Sankara, Tahsil: Pithora, Civil-Revenue District & District: Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Versus Smt. Anju Pradhan W/o Shri Basant Pradhan, aged about 29 years By Caste- Kolta, R/o Basna, P.S. and Tahsil: Basna, District: Mahasamund Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Block Colony, Saraipali, P.S. and Tahsil: Saraipali, Civil-Revenue District & District: Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17.01.2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court, Saraipali in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 89 of 2015, whereby the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.01.21 14:27:34 +0530 2 for grant of maintenance has been allowed, granting maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. 2. Facts of the case are that, marriage between the applicant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 06.05.2009 at Village: Bansula, according to Hindu Customs & Rituals and thereafter the respondent-wife started living with the applicant at Village: Saldih. After some time of their marriage, dispute arose between them and the respondent-wife refused to reside at her matrimonial home. It was alleged that after the marriage the nature of the applicant-husband got changed and he used to demand money from her and also used to torture her. A social meeting was also convened and thereafter the applicant and respondent started to live together. Thereafter, again the applicant-husband started demanding money and also committed maar-peet with her. Being fed-up with persistent ill-treatment, the respondent-wife lodged a report before Police Station: Basna on 07.12.2014 under Section 498-A of IPC and thereafter, the parties were sent before the Conciliation Centre Mahasamund, where the applicant-husband refused to keep the respondent-wife along with him and only thereafter, offence under Section 498-A of IPC was registered against the applicant-husband. Thereafter, the wife- respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which was allowed by the Family Court as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of respondent-wife without appreciating the evidence 3 available on record is illegal and bad in the eye of law. He further submits that the Family Court also erred in appreciating the fact that the respondent-wife is earning Rs. 10,000/- by working as Hindi Teacher, therefore, it is prayed that present revision may be allowed and order passed by the learned Family Court be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order impugned and submits that the order impugned granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife is just and reasonable, which does not call for any interference. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Applicant-husband (NAW-1) has admitted the fact that the respondent-wife (AW-1) after going to her parental home, he and his father remained in the house whereas, his mother is suffering from illness and thereafter the respondent-wife lodged a report against his father as well as against him and thereafter they were called before Counseling Centre, Mahasamund, in which respondent-wife agreed to live with him, but he himself refused to live with her. It is also admitted by him that after the counseling, a criminal case was registered against him in Police Station: Basna and proceedings under Section 498-A of the IPC were also pending before the Court of JMFC, Basna. 7. On the contrary respondent-wife (AW-1) in her statement has admitted that the applicant-husband used to taunt her with respect to preparation of food and that she does not look after his father properly and he used to quarrel with her whereas, according to her she used to serve and look after his father sincerely. She has specifically stated 4 that her husband had quarreled with her and told her that he does not want to keep her with him and only thereafter she had gone to her parental home. It is also admitted by her that applicant-husband has filed an application for conducting social meeting which was convened at Rasoda and in the meeting they were made to understand to live together. 8. From perusal of above statements, it is clear that the applicant- husband himself has refused to keep her wife-respondent with him and that the statement of respondent-wife (AW-1) has been corroborated by Ajay Pradhan (AW-2). Furthermore, Para 20 of the impugned award would also reveal that social meetings were held in Village: Saldih and Village: Chanaurdih wherein, the applicant- husband was also advised to keep the respondent-wife along with him, which fact was corroborated by Dayanidhi Sahu (NAW-2). Though Dayanidhi Sahu (NAW-2) has stated in his statement that in the said meeting, respondent-wife has stated that she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil and would not look after his parents, but such fact has not been pleaded in his reply. Furthermore, Ramesh Kumar Sahu (NAW-3) has stated that in Family Counseling Centre, the respondent-wife has specifically stated that she would go to him if the applicant-husband would keep her properly and despite that the applicant-husband has refused her to keep with him. 9. In view of above, it is clear that although there has always been a dispute between the parties on domestic matters, but the respondent- wife has always been ready to live with the applicant-husband whereas, it was the applicant-husband who has been not ready to 5 keep her along with him. Moreover, Applicant-husband (NAW-1) has admitted that he is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in Middle School Pasarwana, Block Pithaura and is receiving monthly salary of Rs. 31,485/- as is evident from Ex.P/4 which is a salary slip. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court was justified in granting maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- in favour of the respondent-wife, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh