1 2025:CGHC:27471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 676 of 2025 • Arun Singh S/o Brijbhushan Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village And Post Itwah, Police Station Pachrukhi District - Siwan (Bihar) ... Applicant versus • Smt. Parwati Bai W/o Dhansai Aged About 22 Years Caste Dhobi R/o Harda Police Station And Tahsil Sakti Civil And Revenue District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard. 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 be pleased to set-aside the order dated 04.04.2025 passed by learned court below for the ends of justice and may further be please to Remand the order dated 04.04.2025 and reduce the maintenance amount, in the interest of justice.” VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and non-applicant is husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 29.11.2021 as per the customs of their community. According to the non-applicant No. 1, after the marriage, the applicant began to harass and assault her, ultimately ousting her from the matrimonial home, following which she started residing with her parents at Raigarh. The applicant allegedly neglected to provide any maintenance, compelling the non-applicant to file an application on 11.07.2024, seeking maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month. The Family Court initially referred the matter for counseling and subsequently awarded 4,000/- per ₹ month as maintenance to the non-applicant. The applicant, while producing oral and documentary evidence, contended that the non-applicant is residing separately without sufficient cause, despite his willingness to maintain her. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the ex-parte order of maintenance of 4,000/- per month in favour of the non- ₹ applicant, as the non-applicant failed to prove any justifiable reason for residing separately, and therefore she is not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence on record because neither the non-applicant nor her witnesses produced any legal or reliable evidence to establish that the applicant refused to keep her; rather, it is she who, without any 3 sufficient cause, voluntarily left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental house. The learned Family Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and passed the impugned order without considering the documentary evidence and without proof of the applicant’s income. Thus, the order is perverse, against the settled principles of law as laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 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 applicant and non-applicant are legally wedded husband and wife, and that after the marriage, the applicant began to harass and assault her, ultimately ousting her from the matrimonial home, following which she started residing with her parents at Raigarh. The applicant failed in his duty to provide maintenance, leaving the non-applicant without financial support, thereby justifying the filing of the application seeking maintenance of 30,000/- per month ₹ . The Family Court, after affording opportunity for counseling and considering the needs of the non-applicant as well as the capacity of the applicant, has passed a reasoned and just order in accordance with law to secure the rights of the wife and minor child to maintenance. Further considering the fact that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order awarding maintenance of 4,000/- per ₹ 4 month to non-applicant (wife). 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali