1 2025:CGHC:38828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 671 of 2023 Mahendra Dadsena S/o Shri Chhabilal Dadsena Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Thana and Tahsil Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Seema Sinha W/o Shri Mahendra Dadsena Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Govindpur, Thana and Tahsil Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Haldi, Tahsil Gundardahi, Distt. Balod (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balod, District - Balod (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.102/2022, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of application i.e. 01.04.2022. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant/husband and the respondent/wife took place on 06.05.2020 at PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.06 19:00:19 +0530 2 Village Haldi as per societal customs. However, the respondent left the matrimonial home after only nine months of marriage. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that after marriage, the applicant and his family began harassing her for not bringing proper gifts and a vehicle as dowry. As a result, she left her husband's house and has since been residing at her parental home. In response, the applicant appeared before the Family Court and filed a written statement denying all allegations. He stated that the respondent left the house without any sufficient reason and falsely accused him. He further alleged that she neglected household responsibilities and failed to care for his parents. The applicant is currently employed as an Assistant Programmer on a contract basis under the Janpad Panchayat, posted at Kanker, earning ₹27,570 per month. The contract is renewed annually and is not a regular/permanent position. The respondent is employed as a teacher at DAV Public School, Dantewada, and also provides private tuition, earning approximately ₹24,000 per month. During Court proceedings, she admitted to earning ₹14,000 per month. Despite the evidence, the Family Court passed the impugned order without properly considering the legal provisions or the facts on record. There is nothing in the evidence to prove that the respondent is living separately for a justifiable reason. Hence, this revision petition is being filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to the respondent, despite the fact that she failed to produce any evidence justifying her decision to live separately. Both parties are well-educated, and the respondent, being employed at a reputed institution (DAV Public School), chose not to adjust with the applicant, who is a contractual employee residing in a modest village in Kanker District. The Family Court 3 failed to appreciate that the respondent admitted in her statement to earning Rs.14,000 per month and also earns additional income from tuition. She, therefore, has sufficient means to maintain herself and is not entitled to maintenance. Furthermore, the Family Court overlooked the fact that the respondent deserted the applicant without sufficient reason. The Court also failed to consider the applicant’s income and his responsibility to support his elderly parents. The impugned order was passed without complying with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates disclosure of income and assets through an affidavit under Para 120—a requirement the respondent failed to fulfill. Lastly, the direction to pay Rs. 3,000 per month from the date of the application imposes a significant financial burden on the applicant, who earns only ₹27,570 per month on a contractual basis. The impugned order is therefore contrary to settled legal principles and ignores the respondent wife's admitted income. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it is an admitted fact in the case that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The respondent is residing separately from the applicant for valid reasons, and the applicant, despite being capable, has made no arrangements for the maintenance of the respondent. From the evidence presented on record, it is clear that the respondent is employed as a 4 teacher and earns a monthly salary of ₹14,000. However, considering the current inflation, the respondent's income cannot be regarded as stable and sufficient. Therefore, it is the legal and moral duty of the applicant, who is the husband of the respondent and a financially well-off person with sufficient means, to provide financial support for the proper maintenance and livelihood of the respondent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti