1 2025:CGHC:25081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1139 of 2018 Vishwanath Rajwade S/o Shri Shyamlal Rajwade Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Shiksha Karmi Grade-1, Higher Secondary School- Sirsi, R/o Unchdih ( Badkapara ), Police Chowki- Basdei, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Anjani Rajwade W/o Vishwanath Rajwade Aged About 32 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Unchdih ( Badkapara ), Police Chowki- Basdei, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o At Kanchanpur ( Patelpara ) Police Station- Dhourpur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. R.V. Rajwade, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.05.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 District – Surguja (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.174/2015, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts of the case according to the non-applicant that the non- applicant was married to the applicant on 23/05/2000 through Hindu rites and rituals, including the traditional saat phere. At the time of marriage, the applicant/husband was unemployed, and he began demanding ₹2,00,000/- from the non-applicant’s father for securing a job. However, as the non-applicant’s community does not follow the dowry system, her father refused to pay the amount. From the marital relationship between the non-applicant and the applicant, a son named Durgesh Rajwade was born on 06/01/2006, who was at that time aged about 11 years old. While the non-applicant and the applicant were living together and trying to sustain their marital life, frequent disputes arose. During that time, their second son, Suraj Rajwade, was born on 12/07/2009, who was aged about at that time 5 years old. After the birth of both children, the applicant began to suspect the non-applicant’s character and physically assaulted her. Despite this, the non- applicant continued to live with the applicant, bearing everything silently. Multiple community meetings were held to resolve the issues between the non-applicant and the applicant, but the applicant refused to take the non-applicant back into his home. 3 When the applicant was unemployed, he started a grocery store and assigned its management to the non-applicant while he went elsewhere. Upon returning home, if he saw the non-applicant speaking with customers in the shop, he would accuse her of being of questionable character and would beat her at night after the shop was closed, locking her inside the house. Due to the harassment and torture inflicted by the applicant, the non- applicant was residing at her parental home in Kanchanpur since June 2015. Thereafter, the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the applicant/husband before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance. 4. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence and material available on record, vide impugned order dated 25.05.2018, passed the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs.2000/-, which is a higher side. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated that in the present case there is an ample evidence that the non-applicant is leading adulterous life and she was not rendering her duties towards her husband. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated that the non-applicant has not proved that she is living separately with a sufficient cause, moreover in her evidence she has admitted that she made false allegation of dowry to the present applicant and the applicant made complaint against the non- 4 applicant about her adultery. This fact is not considered. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has recorded the finding that upon analysis of the above facts, it is found to be proven that the non-applicant is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and their marriage is still subsisting. It is also established that the non-applicant is residing separately from the applicant for sufficient and valid reasons and is unable to maintain herself. Further, the applicant is a physically fit individual and a government employee, who is capable of maintaining the non-applicant but has neglected to do so. Considering the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, the Family Court has granted Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the 5 learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. No interference is called for. The applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal