1 2025:CGHC:2322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1121 of 2015 Pyare Lal Sahu S/o Dimar Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Sankara K Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Droupati Sahu W/o Pyare Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Paupara, P.S. Utai, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.16 15:59:50 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist submits that the non- applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the applicant (husband). In her application, she stated that they married on May 25, 2006, according to Hindu rituals, and she lived with him until 2013. She alleged that the applicant's first wife died in 2006, and he married her thereafter. Initially, he treated her well, but after three years, he started harassing her, eventually forcing her out of the house in 2013. He also submits that non-applicant reported the incident to the Mahila Thana Balod, and counseling was conducted, after which the applicant agreed to take her back. However, he resumed harassing her. She claimed that the applicant owned 25 acres of land and worked as a money lender, and thus, she sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. He also submits that the applicant, stating that he brought the non- applicant into his home under the "Chudi Pratha" custom to care for his elderly mother and cook for the family. However, she allegedly treated his mother cruelly, prompting him to file a complaint with the committee on June 29, 2006. The respondent left his home without notice on June 22, 2013, and allegedly assaulted him, requiring medical treatment. He also submits that the applicant claimed he had no source of income, having given his land to his two daughters from his first marriage. He requested that the application be rejected. 5. He further submits that after considering the evidence and documents presented, the Family Court passed an order on 3 October 19, 2015, awarding the non-applicant maintenance of Rs. 2,000. This petition challenges that order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 443/2013. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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 non -applicant cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek