1 2025:CGHC:39497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 972 of 2025 Sachindra Barle S/o Shri Kaushal Barle Aged About 37 Years Occupation - Service, Police Constable Employee Code No. 18020012779, Police Line, Mungeli, Posting Address District Collectorate Office, Mungeli (C.G.) R/o Village- Bodhipara, Post- Fasterpur, P.S.- Fasterpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Fulmani W/o Sachindra Barle Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Bodhipara, Post- Fasterpur, P.S.- Fasterpur, Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) At Present R/o Paramhans Ward, Mungeli, P.S.- City Kotwali, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2025, in the interest of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:58:28 +0530 2 justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, stating therein that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 13.06.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, she went to the house of the applicant to perform her matrimonial obligations, but she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and his family members. As a result, she lodged a complaint before the Mediation Centre, Mungeli, where counseling was conducted on 11.06.2017. During the counseling, the applicant agreed to treat the respondent properly. Pursuant to that agreement, the respondent again went to the applicant’s house. However, she was once again subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. Therefore, she is now residing in her parental home. 4. After receiving notice, the applicant filed a reply wherein he denied all the allegations and submitted that he never subjected the respondent to any cruelty and had always treated her properly. He contended that the respondent herself was not willing to live with him and, therefore, left his house and has been residing separately without any reasonable cause. Hence, she is not entitled to any maintenance and her application deserves to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 08.05.2025, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,500/- per month to the respondent from the date of the application i.e., 18.04.2024, towards her maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and 3 therefore, liable to be set aside. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is living separately without any reasonable cause, and therefore, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant had made several efforts to bring back the respondent, but she refused to live with him. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant obtained compassionate appointment in lieu of his deceased brother, and he is also responsible for the maintenance of his ailing mother and father. Learned Family Court has failed to consider that the respondent is a healthy woman and is capable of maintaining herself. He further submits that learned Family Court has awarded maintenance to the respondent on the higher side, which is not sustainable considering the applicant’s low income. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to properly appreciate the documents and evidence produced before it, and has arrived at a baseless and unjust conclusion. 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 parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent 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