1 2025:CGHC:32629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 592 of 2021 Bharat Singh Kurud S/o Baisakhu Kurud Aged About 40 Years R/o Lalguda House No. 179 Village Sargiguda Pujaripara Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Rukmani Kurud W/o Bharat Singh Kurud Aged About 26 Years R/o Present Address Dindayal Kunwar House No. 134 Michipara Village Bhumka Post Hirri Tahsil Farasgaon, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure R-1), passed by Judge Family Court Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 22/2021, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, seeking maintenance on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and was deserted by him without any reasonable cause, and subjected to cruelty. Upon receiving notice, the applicant appeared and contested the claim, stating that the non- applicant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home after staying with him for only seven to eight months. He further contended that she was capable of earning on her own and that he had to support his dependent family members, including his mother, brother, nephew, and niece, making him financially constrained. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Family Court, by its order dated 30.07.2021, granted ₹9,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 is bad in law and liable to be set aside, as it is not a well-reasoned or speaking order and has been passed solely on the basis of the non-applicant’s pleadings while ignoring the evidence and submissions of the applicant. The Family Court failed to consider that the applicant was willing to keep the 3 non-applicant with him, and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance under the law. The allegation of cruelty based on the care provided to one Rangbati is unfounded, as she is the applicant’s assumed sister and is being cared for by the entire family due to her illness. The Court’s contradictory view on this issue reflects a non-judicious approach. Further, the quantum of maintenance awarded is excessive given the applicant’s financial condition, especially when no proper assessment of his income was made. The court also ignored the fact that the non-applicant is living with her family members, who are capable of supporting her. Moreover, awarding maintenance from the date of application, instead of from the date of the order, without any claim for interim maintenance, is also contrary to settled legal principles. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (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 order passed by the learned Family Court on 30.07.2021 is just, proper, and in accordance with law. The Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and circumstances of both parties, rightly concluded that the non-applicant is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and was entitled to maintenance, having been deserted 4 without just cause and subjected to cruelty. The applicant’s plea that the non-applicant was capable of earning or that he had financial burdens due to dependent family members does not absolve him of his legal duty to maintain his wife. The Family Court has exercised its discretion judiciously and awarded ₹9,000/- per month as maintenance, which is reasonable considering the rising cost of living and the obligation of the husband to ensure his wife’s dignity and basic sustenance. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference. 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. 10. 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