1 2025:CGHC:45868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1249 of 2019 G.P. Anant S/o Late Tirath Ram Anant Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Patadi, Police Station Urga , Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Jaishri Anant W/o G.P. Anant Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patadi, Police Station Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the order dated 03.08.2019 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Cr. M.J.C. Case No. 16/2019, and applicant may be permitted to adduce the evidence, in the interest of justice.” ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.11 13:19:12 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was earlier married to late Vimla Devi, who passed away in the year 1986–1987. From the said marriage, the applicant had four children, namely Suraj, Madhu, Chandra Prakash, and Pinky. Thereafter, the applicant married the respondent in the year 1993. From this second marriage with the respondent, two children were born, namely Anima and Anurag. 4. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming a maintenance amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 5. Learned Family Court, by the impugned order, awarded Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has not filed any documentary proof regarding the income of the applicant. The income was fixed by the Family Court merely on the basis of imagination. He also submits that the applicant is a pensioner, and as on 31.08.2019, he received a pension amount of Rs. 34,708/-, whereas the Family Court has erroneously assessed his income to be Rs. 40,000/-. The applicant resides with the respondent in the same house and is already taking care of her needs. Hence, she is not an abandoned lady. He also submits that the applicant has a total of six children from the respondent and his previous wife. All the children are major; four of them are married, and the youngest two are studying in Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur. The educational expenses of these two children are solely borne by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has to maintain himself, provide education to his two children, and also intermittently provide financial assistance to his married 3 children. All these expenses are met out of a small pension amount of Rs. 34,708/-. The grandchildren of the applicant often fall ill, for which the applicant has to bear medical expenses. The applicant is also partially disabled in his left leg and has to walk with the support of an aid, requiring regular medical treatment. Therefore, in view of the above, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- every month amounts to harassment and would be unjust. He submits that the applicant was not heard before the final judgment, though he was present during the initial hearing. Therefore, the impugned order is an ex parte order and deserves to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. The applicant was not examined by the Family Court, nor was he given an opportunity to cross- examine the witness produced by the respondent. The witness, Pushpendra, is not from the same village and is thus unreliable. In view of the above, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Family Court for the examination of the applicant and proper adjudication. The respondent has wrongly mentioned the retirement dues of the applicant. It is submitted that upon retirement, the applicant received around Rs. 12,00,000/-. However, the said amount was withdrawn by the applicant during his service for the marriage of two daughters and two sons, as well as for construction and repair of the house in which the respondent is also residing. 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 applicant, 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 high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 4 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek