1 2025:CGHC:28595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 859 of 2019 Ganesh Rajput @ Ganesh Bahadur S/o Shri Nageshwar Singh Thakur Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Railway Cabin Phatak, Belgahana, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Reeta @ Reetu W/o Shri Ganesh Rajput Aged About 41 Years R/o Near Saraswati Colony, Community Bhawan, D.L.S. College Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav,, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lav Sharma, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned judgment dated 22/06/2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in M.J.C. No. 569/2018 or maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and respondent were married on 19.05.1991 as per Hindu rites and rituals, and the respondent began residing at her matrimonial home. However, within a few months of marriage, the respondent alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the applicant, who later refused to keep her, forcing her to return to her paternal home. She further alleged that the applicant is working as a driver, owns agricultural land in village Jodvapai, and has sufficient income, based on which she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of ₹20,000. The applicant denied all allegations in his reply and stated that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and never returned despite a social compromise. He also submitted that the parties have been living separately for the past 27 years and that the respondent made no effort to resume cohabitation. Despite this, the Learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and documents regarding the applicant’s income, passed an order on maintenance directing the applicant to pay ₹3,000 per month, which is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the material on record. Hence, this revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by 3 the applicant. The Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has been living separately without any sufficient reason and voluntarily left the matrimonial home over 27 years ago. Despite a social compromise, she never returned to cohabit with the applicant and is now allegedly living with another person, namely one Agrawal. The Family Court also overlooked the applicant’s current financial and personal condition he is unemployed, suffering from an eye-related illness, and entirely dependent on his elderly parents and relatives for survival, having no independent source of income. Furthermore, the respondent failed to produce any credible evidence regarding the applicant’s income, and the claim of maintenance appears to be made only to harass the applicant. The Family Court erred in awarding maintenance without properly considering these facts and the documents on record. The applicant reserves the right to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Learned Family Court rightly passed the order directing the applicant to pay ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the 4 respondent, after considering the long-standing separation between the parties and the financial needs of the respondent. Although the applicant claimed that the respondent left the matrimonial home without cause and that they had been living separately for the past 27 years, the Court found it necessary to ensure that the respondent, as the legally wedded wife, is not left destitute. The respondent had alleged that the applicant is engaged in income- generating activities, including working as a driver and owning agricultural land, and even if such income was disputed, the applicant did not produce sufficient evidence to establish complete inability to earn or support. The amount awarded was modest and reasonable, keeping in mind the applicant’s claimed financial condition and the right of the respondent to maintenance under the law. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan