1 2025:CGHC:25123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 620 of 2017 Anand Ram Bhoy S/o Shri Ishwar Bhoy Aged About 31 Years Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village- Kodpali Tahsil And Police Station- Pussour, And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sumati Bhoy W/o Shri Anand Ram Bhoy Aged About 28 Years Occupation- Dependent , At Present R/o Village- Tinmini, Tahsil And Police Station- Pussour, And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent : Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Shri Abhishek Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated order dated 27.04.2017, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. F-10/15, by the learned Family Court, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:44:08 +0530 2 the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.3000/- per month to respondent/wife towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that marriage between applicant and respondent took place on 21-05-2010 at Village Tinmni District Raigarh with Hindu rites and rituals, thereafter they started living at her matrimonial house situated at Village Kodapali District Raigarh, after 2 years after their marriage respondent/ Wife was being harassed and treated with cruelty by the applicant and her in laws continuously by questioning on her character and demanded dowry as well, since parents of the wife given sufficient dowry at the time of solemnization of their marriage, eventually in the year of 2012 she had no other option except to leave her matrimonial house. Thereafter from 2012 till today she is living at her parental house. She further pleaded that she is not having any sources of income she fully depend on her parents income, and she further submitted that, applicant is a agriculturist having 10 acres of agricultural land thereby he is earning 5,00,000/- (Rs.5 Lakh) per annum and further got compensation in land acquisition, and he performed second marriage as well, Therefore, prayed for maintenance of 15000/- per month from the applicant. After service of the notice non applicant submitted his written reply on the abovementioned application for grant of maintenance and as per the pleading of the applicant by denying the abovementioned facts except 3 admitted facts he pleaded that, applicant/wife was never treated with cruelty and she was not harassed by demanding dowry and by questioning on her character, we were living very happy and peaceful married life, but the actual fact is that the respondent/Wife's mind is not well developed, and she suppressed this fact to the applicant at the time of marriage, then all of a sudden without any sufficient reason in the year of 2012 she left matrimonial house and started living in her parent's house. He tried his level best, sort out the issue but she refused to live again with the applicant/husband. He further pleaded that, they having joint family and poor agriculturist they having only 2 acres of lands in the name of applicant's Father, applicant's not having any personal sources of income, he further pleaded that, his family expenses is increasing day by day but comparatively his income is so meager. Therefore, applicant prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the respondent/wife. The learned Family Court on the basis of pleading of parties and their evidences wrongly come to the conclusion and presumed that, applicant's sources of income is not Nil, and further allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. Hence this Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court acted with material irregularities and wrongly come to the conclusion and presumed that, applicant's source of income is not Nil, and further allowed the application and granted maintenance 4 of Rs.3000/- per month, which is very higher side as per no evidence of the applicant's income in the case, which deserves to be set aside. He would submit that the learned family court has failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant belongs to joint family and poor agriculturist they having only 2 acres of lands in the name of applicant's Father, applicant's not having any personal source of income, Thus the applicant is not at all competent enough to maintain the non-applicant in such increased amount, because it is much higher side. He would further submit that the learned Family Court failed to determine the maintenance in accordance with the salary and facts and circumstances of the case because the learned Family Court without any basis allowed the application and granted maintenance to a women who left her matrimonial house without any sufficient grounds, which is illegal and deserves to be 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/wife therein and directed the respondent/husband therein to pay Rs.3000/- per month to applicant/wife towards maintenance observing that the applicant/wife has successfully proved her entitlement to maintenance from the respondent/husband having established that she is the respondent's wife, living separately from him for sufficient reasons, unable to maintain herself and the respondent is capable of providing for her maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding 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. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri