1 2025:CGHC:34956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 877 of 2025 Omprakash Bandhe S/o Shri Dukalha Bandhe Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 611, Ward No.37, Shiv Nagar Sarora, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Jaishree Bandhe W/o Omprakash Bandhe Aged About 25 Years R/o Shakti Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Minor Ishan Bandhe S/o Omprakash Bandhe Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Jaishree Bandhe, R/o Shakti Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3. Minor Kanha Bandhe S/o Omprakash Bandhe Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Jaishree Bandhe, R/o Shakti Ward Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:09:30 +0530 2 prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of maintenance dated 10.06.2025, passed by the Court of learned Family Court, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 207/2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/wife filed an application before the learned Family Court seeking grant of maintenance under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S., stating therein that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 took place on 10.05.2020 at Village Sanjari Navagaon, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), and out of their wedlock, non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were born. The allegation against the husband is that after the marriage, he doubted the character of his wife, and for this reason, in a drunken condition, he used to beat her, resulting in the wife leaving the house of the husband multiple times. However, the husband assured the wife that he would not consume liquor in the future, and both of them compromised 3-4 times. It is also alleged by the wife that the husband and his father demanded money from her father, who gave a cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but after some time, they again demanded a motorcycle and additional cash. On 29.04.2024, the husband again beat his wife with a wooden rod, as a result of which the wife left the house and reported the matter to the police station. The respondent further stated in her application that the husband works as a welder in a private company, earning Rs. 35,000/- per month, and also owns 1.17 acres of agricultural land, from which he earns Rs. 40,000/- per month by cultivating vegetables, fruits, and paddy. 3 4. The applicant denied all the allegations and stated that the story has been fabricated by the respondent/wife. He further stated that the respondent/wife herself has been residing at her parental home and that the allegations made against him are false. The husband also stated that he tried to settle the dispute at the counseling centre, but the wife failed to appear. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties and after recording their statements, the learned Family Court passed an order of maintenance in favour of the respondents, directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month (Rs. 2,000/- each to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 3) from the date of the application, i.e., 22.07.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order of maintenance dated 10-06-2025 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and procedure, and suffers from illegality and perversity, and hence it is liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court ought not to have passed the order against the husband for grant of maintenance on the ground that the wife herself was living at her parental home, and the allegations made against the husband are false. The respondent/wife herself left the house of the husband, and when the police called the wife for counseling at the counseling centre, she failed to appear. Therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside/quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent 4 cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side 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