1 2025:CGHC:6311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1034 of 2024 Deo Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Gupta, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village-Pali, Tehsil- Pali, District-Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Kalyani Gupta W/o Shri Deo Kumar Gupta, Aged About 53 Years R/o Kilaward, Baniyapara, P.S.- City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the learned Family Court in M.Cr.C. No. 206/2020, by which the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C filed by applicant for set-aside of awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent vide order dated 13.01.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 278/2011. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the brief facts of the case is that, the applicant filed an application under section-127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed for set aside of award maintenance of PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.07 19:04:32 +0530 2 Rs. 2,400/- per month to the respondent vide order dated-13.01.2012 passed in M.Cr.C. No.278/2011, stating that the respondent residing separately without any sufÏcient reason and the appellant suffering from many deceases and is under treatment. Appellant is working in the Gopal Medical Stores owned by Ramgopal Gupta and getting salary Rs. 3,000/- per months and the owner of the medical stores is helping him for his medical treatment. The appellant is unable to perform hard work and he is old employee of Gopal Medical Stores and therefore the owner allowed to him only for sitting work in the medical stores. On the other side the respondent is working as Anganbadi Worker and getting salary of Rs. 6563/- per month alongwith food and therefore she is able to maintain herself and therefore the order of award maintenance of Rs. 2,400/- per month to the respondent may be set aside looking to the change of circumstances. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits the orders passed by learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal erroneous and bad in law and liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has rejected the application under Sections 127 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicant is contrary to documents and material available on record therefore the order impugn is bad in law. The learned trial Court has not considered that the respondent is working as Anganbadi Worker and getting Rs. 6563/- per month and subsequently which have increase and now she is getting Rs. 10,063/- per month and she is well able to maintain herself as there are no other liabilities upon her and learned trial Court has also not framed proper issue in the matter which are required to decide the case. The learned trial Court has also not considered the income of applicant has not been proved as no evidence has been produced by respondent before learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has also not considered the applicant 3 is aged about 58 years and suffering from many disease which treatment is going on and no one caring for him and he totally depends upon his relatives and owner of the medical shop where the applicant is working since long. The maintenance amount which is awarded by learned trial Court earlier is too much in respect of income, liability and expenses of applicant. The learned trial Court has also not consider that the respondent residing separately without any sufÏcient reason and she is not performing her liability as a wife of applicant and presently there is requirement of applicant to caring him as he is not a healthy person and alive on medicine and treatment. The learned trial Court has not considered the document available on records and the application has been rejected without considering the facts and situation of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has also not considered that, the applicant is ready to reside with respondent as there is no one in his family who caring to him but the respondent is not agree to live with applicant without any sufÏcient reason. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. 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 earns a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month through personal business of wholesale medicines shop, and the applicant is having much enough property through which he can also earn money, and the respondent/wife has no any source of income instead of working as an Anganwadi Worker with the payment of Rs. 2063/- and she is not 4 able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, has dismissed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant/husband for set-asiding the order of awarding maintenance and afÏrmed the impugned order dated 03.03.2020, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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 earns a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per day through personal business of wholesale medicines shop, and the applicant is having much enough property through which he can also earn money, and the respondent/wife has no any source of income instead of working as an Anganwadi Worker with the payment of Rs. 2063/- and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, has dismissed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the applicant/husband for set-asiding the order of awarding maintenance and afÏrmed the impugned order dated 03.03.2020. 7. 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, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and 5 perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent/wife and monthly income of the applicant/husband, has dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of CrPC, and afÏrmed the impugned order dated 03.03.2020, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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 Preeti