1 2025:CGHC:37756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 905 of 2024 Sat Kumar S/o Late Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 44 Years Occupation Service, S.E.C.L. Pandavpara, R/o Pandavpara Colliery, Police Station And Tahsil Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) Presently Residing At Village- Bilaro, Polie Station And Tahsil Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Rameshwari W/o Sat Kumar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No. 722, Pandopara Colliery, Police Station And Tahsil Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 2. Kumari Gunja D/o Sat Kumar, Aged About 25 Years R/o Quarter No. 722, Pandopara Colliery, Police Station And Tahsil Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) 3. Kumari Nandani D/o Sat Kumar, Aged About 22 Years R/o Quarter No. 722, Pandopara Colliery, Police Station And Tahsil Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents : None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this revision ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.01 14:40:05 +0530 2 petition when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the Court of learned Family Court Manendragarh, Camp Court Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 83/2023 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are the respondent No. 01 has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 01 was solemnized as per the caste customs prevailing between the parties. They were blessed with two children, respondent 02 and 03. It is further stated that the applicant ill-treated them and resides with a keep in another house. The husband is not maintaining them, and therefore, the wife has sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 60,000/- per month. 5. The applicant filed his reply, in which it was pleaded that he does not know the so-called “keep.” He further stated that the sons are voluntarily residing with their mother and are working as contractors, while the daughters are also employed and both have sufficient sources of income. He tried his best to maintain the family, but the wife deliberately disrespected him. The husband maintains an account at Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Pandavpara, and the wife is a joint account holder. The wife used to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the applicant’s account 3 regularly. The matter was also reported to the Branch Manager of the Bank at Pandavpara, as well as to the concerned Police Station at Patna and the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken. The applicant used to perform his work and earn a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month, out of which Rs. 30,000/- was withdrawn by the wife regularly. It is also stated that they are residing in the government quarters allotted to the applicant. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned Family Court framed three issues and, after scrutinizing the evidence and material on record, passed an order of maintenance in favour of the respondent No. 01, awarding her a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the maintenance application, i.e., 22-07-2023. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26-06-2024 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Family Court, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, and hence, it is liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that in paragraph 13 of her statement, the wife has admitted that she used to withdraw a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month from the joint account. Once it has been admitted by the wife that she is regularly withdrawing money from the joint account, she is not entitled to any maintenance amount, which has been erroneously awarded by the learned Family Court. He submits that the respondent No.1 had made a complaint to the Colliery Manager, and the matter was compromised. As per the terms of the compromise, a joint account was to be opened, and the wife was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited. Based on said compromise, the wife has been regularly withdrawing an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. Hence, the order granting maintenance in favour of the wife is bad in law and is liable to be set 4 aside. He further submits that the wife is regularly withdrawing money from the applicant’s joint account. Despite this, the learned Family Court has passed an order granting Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of the wife, which is exorbitant and would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the applicant. It is important to highlight that in the application filed by the wife and her children, it was never disclosed by her that she has been withdrawing money from the joint account. Thus, there is a prima facie concealment of material facts by the wife, and she has not approached the learned Family Court with clean hands. Therefore, the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the wife deserves to be dismissed in toto. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent No. 01 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek