1 2025:CGHC:30316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 711 of 2023 Nitesh Solanki Son Of Rajendra Solanki Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village- Dashrangpur, Police Chowki- Dashrangpur, Police Stationpipariya, Tahsil- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Rajni Banjare Wife Of Nitesh Soloanki Aged About 26 Years Resident Of Village- Dashrangpur, Police Chowki- Dashrangpur, Police Stationpipariya, Tahsil- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) At Present R/o Ward No. 5, Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. I.A. No. 01/2023, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 37 days. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.05 11:40:32 +0530 2 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.42/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent/wife as maintenance amount from the date of order. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, claiming maintenance from the applicant, her husband. She alleged that after their marriage on 08.05.2019, she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for dowry demands, and despite the applicant's monthly income of A30,000, he failed to provide maintenance. The applicant denied the allegations, stating that the respondent left him after a few days and that he was not demanding dowry, as per Christian customs, the bride's side typically provides dowry. He claimed to have lost his job and become blind after the lockdown, making him unable to earn. He also alleged that the respondent is working as a staff nurse with a monthly salary of A40,000 and is living separately without reasonable cause, making her ineligible for maintenance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife is working as Staff Nurse in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and getting monthly salary of 3 Rs. 40000/- per month, therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that after living only for some days, the respondent returned to her parental house. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never subjected the respondent to cruelty for demand of dowry. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant was working in Agriculture Business Networking before the lockdown, but after the lockdown period, the applicant has become blind and due to blindness, he has been ousted from the job from Agriculture Business Networking and at present he is not able to earn any income on account of blindness and he is depended upon his parents. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is living separately without any reasonable cause and further she is not willing to live with the applicant in rural area. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has no permanent source of income. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The impugned maintenance amount is excessive and on higher side, which deserves to be set-aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it is evident from the statements of the respondent/wife and her mother that the applicant/husband is a person of means. The respondent has a proper and sufficient reason for living separately from the applicant. Therefore, in such a situation, the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance amount from the applicant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent’s possible income, her needs, the applicant's 4 sources of income and other liabilities of the applicant, it would be appropriate that the respondent should be given a maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant for her maintenance. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein 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. 10. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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