1 / 4 2025:CGHC:9008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 914 of 2024 1 - Santosh Kumar Chouhan S/o Late Baratram Chouhan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Kansa, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G, Head Constable, Sakari 2nd Batallion, Bilaspur, C/o Commandant, 2nd Batalion, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. (Now Terminated) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kamla Chouhan W/o Santosh Kumar Chouhan Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kansa, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Police Station Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G, At Present Resident Of Village Pisoud, Police Station And Tahsil Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. The instant criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dated 13-06-2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.75/2022 (Annexure A-1), whereby the application under Section 125 of CRPC for ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.05 14:53:31 +0530 2 / 4 grant of maintenance filed by the present non-applicant has been partly allowed and directed the applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the non-applicant. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the non-applicant /wife filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) stating therein that she was married with the applicant on 17-02-1996 with Hindu Customs and Rituals at Baloco Nagar Korba. After the marriage, two children are born out of their wedlock. It is further pleaded that after some time of marriage, the husband tortured the wife physically and mentally and finally thrown out from the matrimonial house and solemnized second marriage with one Sadhna Chouhan and thereafter with one Nisha Thaware. It was further pleaded that the husband is working on the post of Head Constable at 2nd Batalion Raipur and getting Rs.50,000/- as salary. The husband is also having land and is earning Rs.2,50,000/, thus the wife claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as a maintenance. 3. The applicant filed his reply to the application and denied the adverse allegations made against him and also submitted that he has never committed any kind of ill-treatment and cruelty against the wife, whereas after the birth of children, she herself has started maintaining distance with the husband and created disputes on petty issues and left his house. The husband also submitted in his reply that the land of the husband is kept forcibly and do the agricultural work and in this regard one suit was also filed by him before the concerned Court. It was also 3 / 4 pleaded in the reply by the husband and he has never solemnized second marriage and on the complaint of wife, the department has removed him from the service. 4. The learned Family Court after evaluating the facts & circumstances of the case and also the evidence led by the parties partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance and directed the applicant to pay total maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to the wife. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the false allegations have been leveled against the applicant with regard to cruelty and she herself has left the company of the applicant and has kept the land of the applicant forcibly for the agricultural work and in this regard one suit is also pending. He would next contend that the applicant has not performed the second marriage and on the basis of the false complaint lodged by the non-applicant the department has removed him from the service. He would therefore, contend that the order passed by the family Court granting monthly maintenance to the wife is bad and the same deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that the family Court has granted a small amount towards the maintenance, therefore, the same is not illegal or bad and the instant petition filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Though the applicant has stated that the non-applicant is working in a 4 / 4 medical college, however, no document with regard to income of the non-applicant has been produced by him. He has further admitted that he has 02 acres of land in village Kansa and he has additional joint land along with his sister. Since the applicant has been removed from the service on the basis of the complaint lodged by the non-applicant but there are certain lands in his possession. As such, he is in better position than the non-applicant as non-applicant/wife is a non earning lady who is not capable to maintain herself. Therefore, looking to the the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities and also the fact that the Non-Applicant is not earning any amount as such she is not able to maintain herself, the amount of maintenance Rs.2500/- per month so granted by the Family Court is just and proper which do not call for any inteference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu