1 2025:CGHC:2982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1059 of 2017 Dharmudas Vadhavani S/o Shri Vishnumal Vadhvani Aged About 40 Years Mother Late Durg Devi Vadhvani, R/o Quarter No. L I G 116 Housing Board Colony Charoda Bhilai Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Pinki Vadhavani D/o Kishan Chand Dingvani Aged About 32 Years R/o Jhulelal Mandir K Samne Jhangi Dukan K Piche Gali Me Bhaipara Lakhe Nagar Raipur Chhattiagarh, ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 1. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate has represented from the legal aid, in the CrMP No. 222/2018 (application for restoration of the present case) and said that in the present revision he has no power, the Court appoints him as an amicus curiae in the present matter. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 respondent. 3. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06/10/2016 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MJC No. 692/2015, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent for grant of maintenance and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and the daughter. Hence, the applicant preferred this Criminal Revision. 4. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent are happens to be husband and wife, who had married according to Hindu rites and customs on 15.02.2002, in Raipur, after a few years of marriage, the respondent started living with the applicant in Charoda-Bhilai. Out of the wedlock a daughter, namely, Sakshi born in the year 2003, who is presently residing with her mother in Raipur. After three to four years of marriage, the respondent’s behavior towards the applicant was changed. She would quarrel over trivial matters, disobey, and not provide conjugal happiness, causing the applicant mental and physical cruelty. The respondent and her parents deceived the applicant by concealing facts about her allergy. In June, 2012, the respondent left the applicant's house volunatarity and went to her parental home in Raipur, by taking their daughter Sakshi and five tolas of gold jewelry with her. Despite making efforts by the applicant to reconcile through acquaintances 3 and relatives, the respondent refused to return and live with the applicant. Due to the respondent’s departure, the applicant has developed hypertension, vertigo, and allergies, and is now dependent on medication for survival. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Raipur, which was disposed of on 06.10.2017, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent and Rs. 3,000/- to their daughter, Sakshi Wadhawan, as maintenance. The applicant after being aggrieved by the said order submitted that he is unable to pay the said amount of Rs. 8,000, as his daily income is only Rs. 200/- from selling cotton waste, and he is trying to increase his income by working part-time at his cousin's provision store. The applicant is shocked and frightened by the said order and has requested this Court to modify the said order, considering his illness, lonely and struggling life for the past five years, and reduce the amount of maintenance from Rs. 8,000/- per month to a reasonable and justifiable amount. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that  the respondent has left the applicants house in the year 2012 saying that she cannot give marital happiness and other small things, and she can maintain herself from papad industry but since she has very little loss from this industry, she earns income by giving tuitions to nursery children, then on the advice of her uncle Nanak Sindhi that Court is the only place from where money can be recovered from the applicant/husband, then the respondent/wife filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC in 2015 and the applicant’s house 4 was sold in 2015 and the second house was sold in 2016 due to the appellant living alone and being in some debt. The applicant earns Rs. 200/- per day by selling cotton and wicks and to increase his income, he works part time in his cousin's provision business. The appellant became poor and his property was sold after the respondent left. It is requested that the applicant is unable to pay the amount to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent and his daughter. Thus, the impugned order is liable to set-aside. 6. 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 has stated that he is earns a sum of Rs. 200/- per day through personal business, but the applicant is having much enough property through which he can also earn money, and the respondent/wife has no any source of income and she is not able to maintain herself, on which ground the learned Family Court, Raipur, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 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. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and her daughter, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings 5 and documents appended thereto. 8. 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, Dharmudas Vadhvani, has stated that that he is earns a sum of Rs. 200/- per day through personal business, but the applicant is having much enough property through which he can also earn money, it is also clear that the respondent was not able to maintain herself, due to which in the present case the respondent had requested to provide her monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- from the applicant, and the learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CrPC by passing the impugned order, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and his daughter from the date of passing of the impugned order. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District – Raipur (C.G.), it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on 6 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 125 of CrPC, and ordered the applicant/husband that he must pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and his daughter vide impugned order dated 06.10.2016, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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 Rajshekhar