1 2025:CGHC:30947 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1016 of 2019 Ramsanehi Kashyap S/o Parshuram Kashyap Aged About 36 Years R/o Bus Stand Near Malda, Police Station- Hasaud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Anju Kashyap W/o Ramsanehi Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Manendragarh, Police Station And Tahsil Manendragarh, Ward No. 15 Amakhareva, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Banjare, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravi Banjare, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Mirza Kaiser Baeg, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfuylly prayed that ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:19 +0530 2 this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2019, and passed Rs. 3000/- maintenance to the respondent, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with an interim application for maintenance against the applicant before the Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.). Against the order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh, the present petition is being filed before the Hon’ble High Court on the following facts and grounds. It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Village Manendragarh, District Koriya. After the marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial home and performed her matrimonial obligations. Out of the wedlock, two male children were born, the elder son being 9 years old and the younger son being 2 years old, as per the pleadings of the respondent. It has been alleged by the respondent that the applicant and his family members demanded dowry in the form of a motorcycle and a refrigerator, and for this reason, the applicant and his family members mentally and physically tortured the respondent. It is further alleged by the respondent that the applicant has illicit relations with another woman. The respondent further stated that she left her matrimonial home on 04.03.2017 as the applicant drove her out, after which she started residing at her parental home. She lodged an FIR at Police Station Hasaud and 3 also filed an application before the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and organized a social meeting, but despite these efforts, the applicant did not take her back to his home. The respondent initially filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Janjgir, which she withdrew for certain reasons, and thereafter, she filed the present application before the Family Court, Manendragarh. 4. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with an interim application, demanding Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the applicant. 5. After service of notice, the applicant filed a reply, denying the allegations made by the respondent except for the admitted facts. 6. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 04.06.2019, passed an order against the applicant and rejected his application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.06.2019 is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, and therefore is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife is residing separately at her parental home without any sufficient reason, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife left her two sons, who are residing with the applicant. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the facts, circumstances, and documents produced by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is a person with 4 a disability, as he is deaf, and he faces various difficulties due to his disability. The respondent/wife disliked the applicant due to his disability, which was the reason for her leaving the matrimonial home. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is self-dependent and is working as a tailor; hence, she is capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled to maintenance. 8. 7. That the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife has illicit relations with another person, regarding which the applicant had filed a complaint before the concerned police station on 27.02.2017. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek