1 2025:CGHC:37949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 810 of 2021 Suresh Prasad S/o Rutu Aged About 45 Years By Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Silma, Police Station And Tahsil Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Sukhpati W/o Shri Suresh Prasad Aged About 44 Years By Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Silma, Police Station and Tahsil Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.08 .2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.91/2016, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.04 17:36:24 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), seeking monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/-. It was contended that the applicant and the respondent were married around 30 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. A male child was born from the wedlock but died due to illness. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly began torturing and physically abusing the respondent, pressuring her to consent to a second marriage, which she refused. After intervention by her family members and villagers, the respondent allowed her to reside with him again, but she stayed in his house only for about five years. Subsequently, he no longer permitted her to stay with him, prompting her to return to her parental home. The applicant further stated that a village meeting had decided that if either party remarried, a compensation of ₹5,000/- would be paid to the other. Around 20–22 years ago, the applicant remarried one Sampatti Bai, allegedly with the approval of the village panchayat at Silma. Thereafter, the applicant left the respondent at her parents' house and provided her with rice, wheat, and money for some time. However, on 28.04.2016, when the respondent attended a wedding in village Silma, the applicant abused and threatened her and refused to provide further support. The applicant claimed she is now unable to maintain herself due to physical weakness and lack of support. She alleged that the applicant owns 13 acres of joint agricultural land and runs a street food stall at Shantipara, Batauli Bus Stand, earning approximately ₹30,000/- per month, making him capable of supporting her. 3. In his reply, the applicant denied the allegations and asserted that their marriage ended in divorce on 02.05.1990 through a village panchayat settlement, and the respondent herself executed the divorce document. 3 He claimed they lived together for five years without any torture or harassment, and that he remarried only after their divorce. He further alleged that the respondent left his house of her own will and chose to live with her parents. He stated that he received only 1.5 acres of land after partition with his brother, is not running any street food business, and that the applicant’s family is financially well-off. Therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. After considering the evidence and witness statements, the learned Family Court passed an order on 24.08.2021, granting the applicant a monthly maintenance of ₹1,000/-. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court acted with material irregularity and failed to properly appreciate the facts and evidence on record. It would not be just and proper to grant maintenance to the respondent (wife), as she failed to prove the income of the applicant (husband). The applicant contended in his reply that the respondent willingly left his house and was never subjected to torture or harassment. No complaint regarding cruelty or domestic violence was ever filed by her. On the contrary, she filed the maintenance application on false grounds. She herself executed a document regarding their divorce before the Gram Panchayat and chose to reside at her parental home, showing no intention to continue matrimonial relations. However, the learned Family Court ignored these facts and wrongly passed the impugned order. Furthermore, the respondent has been living separately for the past 20 years of her own free will. She belongs to a financially well-off family and has sufficient means to maintain herself. The applicant has only 1.5 acres of agricultural land after partition and is already struggling to support his current family. He lacks the financial capacity to provide maintenance to the respondent. The respondent voluntarily gave divorce through the Gram Panchayat, 4 following which the applicant remarried. She remained at her parental home for over 20 years and filed the maintenance claim only after a lapse of 22 years. In such circumstances, the grant of ₹1,000/- per month as maintenance is not legally sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti