1 2025:CGHC:30948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 975 of 2019 Shri Lalit Saklecha S/o Late Shri Raju Lal Saklecha, Aged About 50 Years R/o Gautam Rice Mill, Balod Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Jain (Saklecha) W/o Shri Lalit Saklecha Aged About 42 Years R/o House of Dr. S.P. Shukla, Infront of Pakwan Restaurant, Raipur, Naka, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Nayak, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.K. Agrawal, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 19:16:19 +0530 2 may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 827/2016, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, Durg, which was registered as MJC No. 827/2016, wherein she claimed maintenance under different heads. After service of summons, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and respondent solemnized their marriage on 03.02.1991 at Lohara as per Hindu rites and rituals, and out of their wedlock, a male child, namely Prateek Saklecha, was born on 20.08.1992. Thereafter, the applicant and respondent were residing at Balod. As per the facts of the case, the applicant and respondent, during the initial stage of their marriage, resided at Balod. However, after a span of time, due to the ill behaviour of the respondent (wife), the applicant was subjected to cruelty and mental harassment by her. The applicant always made sincere efforts to settle the disputes between them, but the disputes could not be resolved. All of a sudden, on 17.01.2016, the respondent left her matrimonial house and went to Durg, where she started residing in a rented house. Despite several requests made by the applicant, the respondent did not change her behaviour and did not return to reside with the applicant. Being 3 aggrieved by this, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Balod, on 08.06.2016, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 41-A/2016. In this matter, notices were duly served to the respondent, but despite service of notice, the respondent did not appear before the Court, and on 09.11.2016, the learned court passed an order in favour of the applicant. 4. Thereafter, on 26.08.2016, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance from the applicant, and after hearing both parties, the learned court below passed an order directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law and perverse, being based on no reliable evidence. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that on 09.11.2016, the learned Family Court, Balod, had allowed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant, but this fact has been overlooked, and the respondent, without any sufficient reason, was not willing to return to the applicant’s house and had left it on her own. During the span of 24 years of marriage, the applicant and the respondent were residing at Balod, and the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance only to harass the applicant, despite being capable of maintaining herself as she has ancestral 4 property. He further submits that the respondent left the matrimonial house of her own will, and no effort or application for residing with the applicant has ever been filed by the respondent. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek