1 2025:CGHC:34071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 871 of 2025 Nilesh Upadhyay S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 38 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Village Vikrampur, Post- Bartara, Police Station And Tahsil Budhar, District Shahdol M.P. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sharda Upadhyay W/o Shri Nilesh Upadhyay Aged About 35 Years Caste- Bramhan, Occupation- Housewife, R/o Shikshak Colony, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Tandan, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the exparte order dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 842/2018 by the learned 2nd Additional RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG.), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant (husband), stating that their marriage was solemnized on 17.05.2011 as per Hindu rites at Bilaspur (C.G.). She alleged that soon after marriage, the applicant’s behavior changed he began using abusive language, physically and mentally harassed her, and eventually left her at her parental home on the day of Dhanteras. On the advice of family members, the applicant later brought her back, and they lived together in Amlai, where the applicant is employed in the Environment Section of O.P.M. Amlai. She further claimed that the applicant also practices as an Ayurvedic doctor and earns from agricultural land, with a total monthly income of around Rs. 1.90 lakhs, and sought Rs. 70,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and asserted that the non-applicant is a teacher earning Rs. 15,000/- per month along with Rs. 10,000/- from tuition, and that she left the matrimonial home voluntarily on 06.01.2013 with her sister and brother-in-law, without any just cause. He also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. After considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence, the learned Family Court partly allowed the wife’s application and awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant challenges this 3 order as illegal, perverse, and contrary to law, hence the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous both on facts and in law and is liable to be set aside. The Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and did not follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, which are mandatory in maintenance cases. It overlooked the fact that the non-applicant is working as a teacher and also earns from tuition classes, thereby having sufficient means to maintain herself. The applicant had also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, demonstrating his willingness to continue the marital relationship. Despite this, the non-applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and refused to return, even after several efforts made by the applicant, including convening a social meeting for reconciliation. Moreover, the non-applicant failed to produce any documentary proof regarding the applicant’s alleged income. The learned Family Court did not properly evaluate the financial condition of the parties and passed the impugned order without adequate justification, awarding an excessive maintenance amount in the circumstances of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after a thorough consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and documents submitted by both parties. The Court appropriately recognized the fact that the non-applicant (wife) is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty soon after marriage, including being abandoned at her parental home on the day of Dhanteras. Despite efforts at reconciliation, the applicant failed to provide a safe and respectful environment for the wife. While the applicant alleged that the wife is earning as a teacher and from tuition, no substantial evidence was presented to prove that she earns enough to support herself independently. The Court also took note of the fact that the applicant has a stable income from his employment at O.P.M. Amlai and other sources, including Ayurvedic practice and agricultural land. Given the facts and circumstances, the Court’s decision to award a reasonable sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance is fair, justified, and in accordance with the legal principles laid down for the welfare and sustenance of a deserted spouse. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan