1 2025:CGHC:28162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1031 of 2019 Haribandhu Baghel S/o Pachkaudi Aged About 40 Years R/o Uskagudapara, Bakawand, Office Address (Peon), Govt. Middle School, Potiyawand, Bakawand, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Champa W/o Haribandhu Baghel Aged About 36 Years At Present R/o Kandkiguda, Rajnagar, Tahsil Bakawand, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:39:47 +0530 2 impugned order dated 29.06.2019, passed by the Court of Judge, Family Court, Bastar, Place, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), Presiding Officer, Shri Ashok Kumar Sahu, in M.J.C. Case No. 21/2016, or reduced the maintenance amount by suitably modify the order, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage approximately 22 years ago according to Hindu customs and rituals at Rajnagar. As a result of the said wedlock, one daughter was born, but she has since passed away. The application was filed on the ground that the applicant had kept another woman in his house and had expelled the respondent. It was further contended that the applicant is a government employee, working as a peon at Government Middle School, Potiyawand, Bakawand, District: Bastar (C.G.), and earns approximately Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was also submitted that he owns five acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum. The respondent, therefore, sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 12,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant, in his written reply, denied the contents of the application and specifically contended that he belongs to the Bhatra caste and, therefore, the Hindu Marriage Act does not apply to him. He further claimed that he earns only Rs. 14,000/- per month and denied the other allegations made in the application. The learned Family Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both parties, passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2019, 3 whereby the application of the respondent was allowed, and she was granted maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and the evidence available on record. The learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to observe that the respondent was unable to prove the income of the applicant. The learned Family Court has awarded a maintenance amount in favour of the respondent that is on the higher side, considering the actual salary of the applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, arbitrarily allowed the application of the respondent, which is illegal. The learned Family Court failed to take into account that the respondent had left the applicant’s house of her own will. He also submits that the respondent has not proved the existence of a valid marriage with the applicant, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) in MJC No. 21 of 2016 vide order dated 29.06.2019. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the learned Family Court. 4 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek