1 2025:CGHC:24961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 333 of 2017 • Rakesh Kumar Banjare S/o Shri Ganeshram Banjare, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village- Bhodhali, Police Station- Abhanpur, Presently R/o Lig 207 Dindayal Colony, Police Station Arang, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant Versus • Babita Banjare D/o Shri Rakesh Mandale, W/o Rakesh Kumar Banjar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Murethi, Post- Kurud Camp, Police Station- Mandir Hasoud Raiprur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.506/2014, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been allowed and it is directed to the non- applicant/husband (applicant herein) that he would pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance amount. Hence, this revision. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.20 11:32:13 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent/wife had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, mentioning therein that she was married with the applicant in the year 2013 according to Hindu rituals. After marriage, behavior of non applicant/husband suddenly changed with the respondent/wife. He expressed that he married with applicant/wife in the pressure of his family members. Other allegation made by the applicant in her application related to torturing her. Thereafter she filed an FIR against the non- applicant/husband in Mahila police station and in that counseling has been conducted but no compromise could be settled between them. At present the applicant live with her father and non-applicant moved an application under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation. Applicant is a house wife and she is not competent to maintain herself. Therefore, she prayed for 15,000/- per month as a maintenance from non-applicant/husband. 3. The non-applicant/husband, in his written statement, refuted all the allegations and specifically denied the other facts made against him and averred that applicant was not willing to settled with him and she want to get the registry of house in her favour which is registered in name of non- applicant. She also threatens him by sending jail and his family member. Non-applicant is a secretary in village Panchayat and he gets Rs.9,300/- as salary per month. On dated 27.02.2017, the learned Family Court has allowed the application of maintenance in favour of applicant/wife and ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for the same. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits the learned Family Court acted illegally in substantially allowing the application of the applicant/wife without considering the evidence of the non-applicant/husband as well as document produced by him. Non- 3 applicant/husband has clearly established that he has been suspended from his department, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the contents of the suspension of the non-applicant prior to allowing the applicant’s application. He further submits that the learned Family Court has completely failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and material adduced by the non-applicant in its true perspective and therefore, reached in a wrong conclusion by holding that the non-applicant has done cruelty with the applicant/wife in the instant case. The learned Family Court committed error in not considering that it is the non-applicant/wife herself who left the company of the applicant with her own will without any reason and therefore she is not entitled for any amount of maintenance as claimed by her. The learned Family Court overlooked the very fact that the applicant/wife has illegally taken possession of the non-applicant father’s house and is residing there. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is otherwise erroneous on facts and in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and the records. 6. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the non-applicant/husband was a Panchayat Secretary and he used to get Rs.9,300/- per month as salary and at the relevant time he was suspended from his service and was getting Rs.4,650/- per month as salary. However, non-applicant/husband has stated that his wife has passed class 12th and is working but in this regard, no relevant document has been presented by him, thus, it has been proved that applicant/wife is not working and has no source of income. Further, as per the order dated 24.03.2015, the applicant/wife is getting Rs.2,000/- as interim 4 maintenance amount from her husband. Though at the relevant point of time the non-applicant/husband was suspended and was getting Rs.4,650/- as salary per month, but after reinstatement, he would get adequate salary. Further, the applicant/wife is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons and is not capable of maintaining herself. Therefore, keeping in view the economic and social status of the applicant/wife and the moral responsibility of the husband towards his wife, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the applicant/wife, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper and the same warrants no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/husband and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti