1 2025:CGHC:29221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1216 of 2019 Sachchidanand Tiwari S/o Late Shivnarayan Tiwari Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 137, Near Durga Kirana Store, Arjun Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Ranu Tiwari W/o Sachchidanand Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 137, Near Durga Kirana Store, Arjun Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Ganpat Nagar, New Changorabhata, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Mishra holding the brief of Mr. N.Y. Quadari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Ajay Mishra holding the brief of Mr. N.Y. Quadari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.692/2017, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married on February 21, 2000, in Raipur, and they have a 14-year-old son from their marital life. After the marriage, the applicant started harassing the respondent, not allowing her to talk to any family members, and physically abusing her. In 2017, when the respondent’s elderly parents fell ill, she asked the applicant to let her visit her parental home, but the applicant got angry, beat her, and threw her out of the house. The respondent has no source of income, while the applicant works as an Assistant Officer in TTC Haryana and earns a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. The respondent has sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. In response, the applicant admitted that the respondent is his wife but claimed that the application is based on false and fabricated grounds. The applicant stated that after the marriage, both parties were living happily, but the respondent would often go to her parental home without his consent. The respondent had previously left her matrimonial home and gone to her parental home on her own 3 accord and had been living in Raipur since then. The respondent had also demanded that the applicant live separately from his mother, which he could not do. The respondent was earning income by teaching tuition and that she had taken voluntary retirement on September 2, 2017, and currently has no source of income. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties had directed to pay Rs.12000/- per month towards maintenance. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court committed error in not considering the fact that the respondent is a retired employee and has to look after his son and parents who are residing alongwith him. He further submits that the Family Court committed error and failed to see that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance as it was the her own will to left the house of applicant, therefore, the order impugned is bad in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 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.12,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the applicant and has sufficient means to live separately from the applicant, so far as income part is concerned, The applicant, Sachidanand Tiwari, claimed that the respondent was maintaining herself by doing tuition work, but no evidence was presented to support this claim. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the respondent has any independent income. In cross-examination, the applicant admitted to being an income tax payer and receiving Rs.31,000/- per month after retirement. Notably, the applicant himself submitted his income tax returns for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, which showed his gross income to be Rs.5,64,844/-, Rs.6,17,940/-, and Rs.4,80,847/-, respectively, which clearly indicates that the applicant is a capable person and has responsibility to maintain the respondent, who is his wife, after considering these facts, the Family Court came to the conclusion that 25% of the applicant / husband's total salary would be a reasonable amount for maintenance to the respondent / wife. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 5 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