1 2025:CGHC:25127 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 585 of 2017 Mahesh Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Hariram Sinha Aged About 22 Years R/o Atal Awas Pendri, Thana- Lalbag, Tahsil/ District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Anju Sinha W/o Mahesh Kumar Sinha Aged About 21 Years Present R/o Sonar Para, Near Shitla Mandir, Tahsil/ District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri Samir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant also heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sunil Otwani, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.04.2017 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 123/2015 whereby the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, has partly GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:39:57 +0530 2 allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondent/wife and ordered the applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the respondent and the applicant was solemnized on 16.01.2015 according to religious rights and customs. The respondent/wife preferred an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance to tune of Rs. 5,000/- per months. This application was founded on the grounds the applicant/husband used to assault and harass the respondent/wife. The respondent/wife has raised her plea before the court below that without any reason, the applicant/husband has thrown her out side. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) has partly allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondent/wife and ordered the applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without considering the material available on record. He would submit that the learned Family Court has not applied his judicial mind to materials available on record and erroneously has granted maintenance to the respondent, because marriage has not been prove by the respondent/wife. He would submit that the learned Family Court has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the applicant was 3 earning Rs.7,000/- per annum. He would submit that the learned court below ought to have seen that the respondent used to earn Rs. 100/- per day by doing the work of laborer. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the learned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, has partly allowed the application for maintenance filed by the respondent/wife and ordered the applicant/husband to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife observing that from the applicant’s/husband’s own admission, it is clear that he is working as a private driver, which indicates that he has a source of income. However, the respondent/wife has not produced any document to show the applicant’s/husband’s actual salary, so the real income of the applicant/husband is not reflected. The respondent/wife is living separately due to harassment and is therefore entitled to receive maintenance from the applicant/husband. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 4 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. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri