1 2025:CGHC:6311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 984 of 2024 Deokumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Gupta Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Pali, Gopal Medical Store, Main Road Pali, Tehsil- Pali, P.S. Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residential Address- Deokumar Gupta, S/o Dhaniram Gupta, R/o Devnandan Nagar, Near Jain Enterprises, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Kalyani Gupta W/o Shri Deo Kumar Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o Baniyapara, Kilaward, Juna Bilaspur, P.S.- City Kotwali, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. … Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, 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. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.07 19:05:05 +0530 2 278/2011. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the brief facts of the case is that the Respondent/Applicant filed an application under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed for enhance the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month instead of Rs. 2,400/- per month, stating that the earlier order of maintenance of Rs. 2,400/- per month have been passed prior to 6-7 years and now it is difÏcult to her to maintain herself from the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,400/- and she is facing financial hardship and therefore she prayed for enhance the maintenance amount. Respondent/Applicant also contended in her application that the applicant/non-applicant earning of Rs. 45,000/- to 60,000/- per month from different source of income and therefore, he is liable to be pay enhance maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits the 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 erred by enhancing the maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month from Rs. 3,400/- per month to the respondent/applicant and the same is contrary to documents and material available on record therefore is bad in law. The learned trial Court has not considered that the respondent/wife 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 court below has also not framed proper issue in the matter which are required to decide the case.8. For that, learned court below has also not considered the income of appellant has not been proved as no evidence has been produced by respondent before learned court below.For that, learned court below has also not considered the 3 appellant is aged about 58 years and suffering form many deceases 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 appellant is working since long. The maintenance amount which is awarded by learned court below earlier is too much in respect of income, liability and expenses of Appellant.10. For that, learned court below has also not consider that the respondent residing separately without any sufÏcient reason and she is not performing her liability as a wife of Appellant and presently there is requirement of appellant to caring him as he is not a healthy person and alive on medicine and treatment.or that, learned court below has not considered the document available on records and the reply of appellant and the maintenance award has been enhanced considering the facts and situation of the case and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.For that, learned court below has also not considered that, the Appellant 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 Appellant 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. 45,000/- to 60,000/- per month through personal business of wholesale medicines shop and by running girls hostels, and the applicant is having much enough property through which he can also earn money, and the respondent/wife has no 4 any source of income instead of working as an Anganwadi Worker with the payment of Rs. 6563/- and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent/wife, 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. 45,000/- to 60,000/- per month through personal business of wholesale medicines shop and by running girls hostels, 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. 6563/- and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent/wife for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of 5 passing of the impugned order. 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 perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of the respondent/wife and monthly income of the applicant/husband, has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 127 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent/wife vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024, 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