1 2025:CGHC:28158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 784 of 2018 Ravidhar Diwan S/o Janki Das Diwan Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Anjoripali, P. S. Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Khileshwari Mahant W/o Ravidhar Diwan Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Anjoripali, P. S. Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh At Present Village Seoni, P. S. Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nilu Singh holding the brief of Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Nilu Singh, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by learned Family Court Janjgir District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.33/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, alleging that the applicant / husband subjected her to cruelty shortly after their marriage and eventually threw her out of the house. She claimed to be unable to maintain herself and sought a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. In response, the applicant denied the allegations, stating that the respondent had left the house without reason and had deserted him. He also mentioned that he had filed a civil suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was decided in his favor on June 19, 2017, as the respondent failed to appear despite notice. The applicant further submitted that he had made an application under Section 97 of the CrPC, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the non- applicant to reside with him on August 21, 2017. Additionally, the applicant presented an agreement dated August 11, 2016, where the respondent stated that she was living separately of her own accord and would not claim any relief or file complaints. The applicant also lodged complaints against the respondent with the 3 police authority on various dates, but the police did not register a case and instead provided reports under Section 155 of the CrPC. 4. Thereafter, Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent had deserted the applicant of her own accord, which dis-entitles her to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the CrPC. The respondent's execution of an agreement stating that she does not wish to live with the applicant further supports this contention. Despite a judgment and decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and an order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing her to reside with the applicant, the respondent has refused to do so without any valid reason. He further submits that the Family Court's decision to grant maintenance to the respondent is flawed, as it failed to properly appreciate the applicant's case and overlooked crucial evidence, including the judgment, and the agreement executed by the respondent. The finding of the Family Court is perverse and unsustainable in law. Given these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. 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 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the testimony of the respondent and her witnesses that the applicant operates a grocery store in the village and owns agricultural land. The applicant earns income from these sources, making him capable of maintaining the applicant. Therefore, the answer to this question is in the affirmative. Regarding maintenance and expenses, the respondent has requested Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. However, she has failed to prove that the applicant’s monthly income is four times the desired amount. Consequently, granting Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance is not feasible. In determining the maintenance amount, the Family Court considered the economic and social status of both parties, as well as the current cost of living, taking into account the applicant’s occupation and income, and considering his standard of living and came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for the maintenance. 5 9. Considering the submissions 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil