1 2025:CGHC:28146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1112 of 2017 Onkar Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Samaru Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Lauda, Tahsil Pathariya, P. S. Jarahagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Kekati Bai D/o Shri Bisahu, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bheempuri, P. S. Junapara Chauki, Tehsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Waqair Nair holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Waqair Nair holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.06.2017 passed by learned Family Court, Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.676/2015, whereby, the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent-wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance allowance from her husband. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is the wife of the applicant and they have a 18-year- old son born from their wedlock. The respondent resides separately at her parental home. According to the respondent, the applicant owns agricultural land and earns approximately Rs.2,50,000/- per annum, while she has no source of income. She claims to have been subjected to cruelty by the applicant and has been living separately for a long time. The applicant has allegedly remarried and refused to keep her, leading her to seek a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000 in the application under Section 125 of CPC. In the reply the applicant denied the claims made by the respondent and submits that he earns a meager income as an agricultural laborer, while the respondent is well-off, living with her affluent parents. He alleges that the respondent demanded to live separately from his parents, and when he refused, she left her matrimonial home 18 years ago and has since refused to return despite his efforts. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the 3 parties has directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Hence, the criminal revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not bona fide, as the parties have been living separately since 1996. The application has been filed after a gap of approximately 19 years, during which the respondent did not raise any claim for maintenance. This long delay suggests that the respondent had sufficient means to maintain herself during this period, and the current application appears to be motivated by other reasons rather than genuine need. He further submits that the respondent, Kekati Bai, would frequently quarrel with the applicant and his family members without reason, demanding that the applicant leave his home and reside with her at her maternal home in Bheempuri. When the applicant refused, the respondent left the matrimonial home in Village Lauda within three months of marriage without any justifiable cause and chose to live with her father. Since then, she has refused to return to the matrimonial home or fulfill her marital obligations, amounting to cruelty. 5. He also submits that the respondent's deliberate decision to leave the matrimonial home disqualifies her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Despite the applicant's efforts to bring her back, she insisted that he live with her at her parental home, likely due to her father's wealthier status. The respondent and her father even abused the applicant and his relatives when 4 they visited to bring her back. Lastly, it is a settled principle that a wife who deserts her husband without reason cannot claim maintenance. Notably, a community meeting in 2003 further highlighted the respondent's refusal to reside with the applicant or perform her marital duties. Instead, she expressed interest in a mutual divorce and sought a customary separation, known as "Chhod-Chhutti." With her consent, the community granted a social divorce, and the parties have since lived separately as divorced individuals. Given these circumstances, the respondent's claim for maintenance appears unfounded. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the pay Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the applicant / husband has a social obligation to provide maintenance to the respondent / wife. The Family Court further observed the standard of living, social status, and earning capacity of the respondent, as evident from the available evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for grant of maintenance. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Akhil