1 2025:CGHC:29548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 499 of 2017 Krishna Dewangan S/o Ramanand Dewangan Aged About 23 Years Caste Kosta, R/o Near Brindawan School, Imlibhatha Mahasamund, Police Station And Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Pooja Dewangan W/o Krishna Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Baronda Bazar, Police Station And Tahsil And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the judgment dated 12.04.2017 so far as it relates to the awarding of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.03 11:14:02 +0530 2 to the non-applicant, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondent against the applicant seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month. It is an admitted fact in the instant matter that the marriage between both parties was solemnized on 02.05.2014 according to their customs and rituals. According to the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, it has been submitted by the respondent that after about two months of marriage, the applicant and her in-laws started taunting and mentally harassing the respondent, due to which she suffered. Further, the applicant also neglected her and ultimately left her alone. Against this, the respondent called for a social meeting, but in the said social meeting also, the applicant refused to keep her with him. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Family Counseling Center, where both parties were advised to live together, but the applicant never took the respondent back to his home, and therefore, the respondent has been residing at her parental house. The respondent also mentioned the income of the applicant in her application and claimed Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. The applicant filed his reply, stating that the respondent was not behaving properly with her in-laws, regarding which the father of the respondent also advised her to respect and behave properly with them. It was further submitted that the respondent left the applicant on her own. During the proceedings before the Family Counseling Center, the counselor advised the respondent to improve her 3 behaviour. It was also submitted that the respondent is a well- educated woman and is engaged in sewing work. The respondent has not been interested in performing her marital duties since the festival of Dussehra in 2014, despite being advised by the applicant and his parents. It was also submitted that during the festival of Bhai Dooj in 2014, when the applicant took the respondent to her parental house, the father and other relatives of the respondent insulted the applicant. After fifteen days, when the respondent returned to her matrimonial home, on 17.02.2015, she misbehaved with and insulted her in-laws. Further, on 18.02.2015, the father of the applicant left the respondent at her parental house under the apprehension that the dispute should not escalate. Again, on 16.03.2015, when the respondent returned to her matrimonial home, there was no change in her behaviour. In fact, the respondent misbehaved with the applicant and his mother and threatened to send them to jail. By way of this reply, the applicant prayed for the rejection of the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 5. Both parties produced their witnesses to prove their respective cases. The applicant produced two witnesses on his behalf, whereas the respondent produced three witnesses on her behalf. 6. The learned Family Court, after going through the above proceedings, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence and taking into account the income of the applicant, allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the 4 respondent. The learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant has no source of income to pay the amount that has been awarded. He submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent continuously ill-treated the applicant and his family members, misbehaved with them, and also threatened to send them to jail. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent is living separately without sufficient cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. He also submits that the learned Family Court completely lost sight of the facts while awarding maintenance to the respondent. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that no evidence was produced by the respondent to prove the income of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the respondent left the matrimonial house without any justifiable reason. The maintenance amount awarded to the respondent is excessive, and the applicant is not in a position to pay the same as he has no source of income. 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 5 respondent 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