1 2025:CGHC:38425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 671 of 2022 Vivek Das S/o Ramswarup Das Aged About 26 Years Occupation Supervisor, Iron Factory, Bhitthikala, R/o Village Bharatpur, Tahsil- Lakhanpur, Police Station And Post- Lakhanpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Radha Das W/o Vivek Das Aged About 23 Years D/o Babhan Das, Occupation Housewife, R/o Village- Nawanagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, P.S. Darima, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 the learned Family Court, asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized in the year 2015, and alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, compelling her to return to her parental home where she has been residing ever since. The applicant, on being served, entered appearance and filed his reply denying all allegations, contending that neither he nor his family members ever demanded dowry, that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause despite his willingness to maintain and cohabit with her, and further stating that a son, Main Das, was born from the wedlock who is suffering from sickle cell disease and is being looked after by him. Upon hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2021, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set aside, further he submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted the respondent from the matrimonial home and, on the contrary, the respondent herself left and has been residing in her parental house without any reasonable cause, disentitling her to maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. He 3 further submits that despite several bona fide efforts by the applicant to bring her back, she refused to resume cohabitation, the learned trial Court erred in awarding an excessive amount of maintenance without considering the applicant’s limited income, his obligation to maintain other family members, and the additional financial burden of providing medical treatment to his son suffering from sickle cell disease. He also submits that the Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is voluntarily residing separately without justifiable reason and it is settled law that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the impugned order granting maintenance on the higher side deserves to be quashed or suitably modified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the respondent, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the applicant had failed to discharge his statutory obligation to maintain her despite having sufficient means. The Court, after appreciating the applicant’s plea that the respondent left the matrimonial home and the fact of the child’s ailment, correctly assessed the overall circumstances, including the financial status of the applicant, and awarded a reasonable sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or unjustified. The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 4 thus reflects proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of law. 6. 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan