1 2025:CGHC:45871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 990 of 2019 Gulshan S/o Shri Late Gurusewal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Bhaismundi Tahsil Magarload, District - Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Lakeshwari Sahu W/o Shri Gulshan Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhaismundi Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari At Present R/o Village Rakhi, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.113/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent were legally married on 05.04.2017 at Village Rakhi, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, according to Hindu rites, rituals, and customs. As per the application filed by the respondent (non-applicant), it is alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant harassed and physically assaulted her, used abusive language, and demanded money. It is further alleged that during the Navratri festival in the year 2018, the applicant ousted the respondent from the matrimonial home. Since then, the respondent has been residing at her parental house. Attempts were made to settle the matter through counseling at the Mahila Cell, but the applicant refused to cohabit with the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent lodged a complaint at Police Station Magarload, but no action was taken against the applicant. The respondent is currently residing with her parents and has no independent source of income. It is also stated that the applicant owns approximately 4 acres of agricultural land and earns an annual income of Rs. 4– 5 lakhs, in addition to income from light decoration work amounting to Rs. 10,000–15,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Learned Family Court, Dhamtari, seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which was 3 registered as Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 113/2018. The applicant filed a written statement denying all the allegations and specifically denied having subjected the respondent to cruelty or harassment in any manner. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dated 29.07.2019 directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The learned Court failed to appreciate that the respondent left the matrimonial home voluntarily and without any sufficient cause, and has made no sincere effort to resume cohabitation. The respondent, being well-educated and capable of earning, is in a better financial position than the applicant and has filed the maintenance application only to harass him. The applicant has never subjected the respondent to cruelty; rather, it was the respondent who acted with cruelty towards the applicant and his family members, including quarreling unnecessarily and attempting to create pressure for partition of family property. Despite serious incidents like the respondent’s alleged suicide attempt, the Court failed to consider these material facts. The applicant, who is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged and ailing parents, is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance awarded. Therefore, the 4 impugned order is unsustainable in law and facts and is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the respondent, Laxeshwari Sahu, is living separately from her husband Gulshan Sahu for justified and reasonable reasons due to the mental and physical harassment she faced. Despite attempts at reconciliation, the applicant (husband) has consistently refused to take her back. The allegations made by the husband were found to be either unproven or trivial in nature, and the court acknowledged that the applicant even attempted suicide due to the unbearable circumstances in her marital home. Although the respondent earns a small income from stitching work, but that does not negate her right to claim maintenance. Considering the applicant is a healthy, able-bodied person, the Court held him legally bound to provide financial support. Therefore, under Section 125 of the CrPC, the Family Court concluded that respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 5 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil