1 2025:CGHC:971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 821 of 2015 Shankerlal Raavte S/o Sabhan Singh Raavte Aged About 40 Years By Caste Halba, By Occupation Panchayat Shiksha Karmi, Primary School, R/o Village Bhotha, Tahsil Charama, Distt. U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Lalita Raavte W/o Shanker Lal Raavte Aged About 35 Years By Caste Halba, R/o Village Jaisakarra, Tahsil Charama, Distt. U.B. Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel the private applicant. Also heard Mr. Amit Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 26.08.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, District – Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 21/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Kanker, Uttar Bastar Kanker partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent moved an application under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance on the ground that applicant is harassing and committing cruelty. The applicant field the reply and submitted that the marriage had dissolve as per the custom and permanent alimony had been received by the respondent in lieu of the maintenance and further she had committed fraud with the applicant and she is not entitled for maintenance and further she was living separately by her own. It was the further say of the applicant that after deduction, he was receiving only an amount of Rs. 10920/- and having the responsibility of the old aged parents, three unemployed brother and further more he is an handicap and for his own treatment huge amount is being invested. The respondent entered in the witness box and in cross examination had specifically stated, that she is capable of earning and can do work at the agriculture field and she further admits, that she received the amount in the meeting, hence, the provision of maintenance was not attracted. Alternatively further as per Section 125(4) of the CrPC, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The applicant is having responsibility of huge family and further he is low paid employee and handicap person, and further he is dependent on others because of his handicap. The learned family Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as a maintenance, without complying with the provision of Family Court 3 Act, and further without considering the provision of Section 125 are not attract and even for assumption though specifically denied, that she is wife, than also she is not entitled for maintenance as per Section 125(4) of the CrPC and further on afÏdavit sworn by the respondents itself and hence order which is unsustainable. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is handicapped and having the responsibility of the huge family and earning only Rs. 10,920/- per month as a salary, which is spend on his family and on his treatment, and having the responsibility of whole family on his shoulder, in fact non-applicant had to maintain the family with the applicant, this fact had totally overlooked by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the respondent had admitted, that customary meeting was there and she had received Rs. 45,000/- and by playing fraud the marriage was performed and this is also evident from the custom meeting, hence, also she is not entitled for maintenance. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent/wife has been living separately from the applicant/husband for so many years as the applicant was beating her and treated her with mental and physical cruelty, thus, it is clear that cruelty is just and sufÏcient ground for the wife to live separately from his husband, further the fact that the applicant has stated that he is posted as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), his gross salary 4 is Rs. 12,371/- per month, and the respondent/wife has no any source of income and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Kanker, Uttar Bastar Kanker, has allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, and there is not any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant is the husband of the respondent, and the allegation raised by the respondent against the applicant is that she has been living separately from the applicant for so many years as the applicant was beating her and treated her with mental and physical cruelty. It is clear that cruelty is just and sufÏcient ground for the wife to live separately from his husband, further the fact that the applicant, Shankerlal Raavte, has stated that he is posted as an Assistant Teacher (Panchayat), his gross salary is Rs. 12,371/- per month, it is also clear that the respondent was not able to maintain herself, due to which in the present case the respondent has requested to provide her monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- from the applicant, and the learned Family Court, Kanker, Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) has allowed the application filed by the respondent 5 under Section 125 of CrPC by passing the impugned order, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of passing of the impugned order. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanker, Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent/wife and monthly income of the applicant/husband, has allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife vide impugned order order dated 26.08.2015, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar