1 2025:CGHC:34914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1181 of 2022 Sanjay Singh S/o Subran Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dumarmunda, P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Darri, Tehsil Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Currently R/o Of Trikon Chowk, Kedarpur In The H/o Tiduram Kushwaha, P.S., Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Gajyantri Paikra W/o Sanjay Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Dhurena, P.S. And Post Deepka, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Shivali Dubey, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on IA No. 01/2022, which is an application for condonation of delay of 12 days for filing the instant revision. 2. On due course, IA No. 01/2022 is allowed, and the delay for 12 days for filing the instant revision, is condoned. 3. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 61/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 127 of the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent. 4. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2011 and the after the marriage they both were residing peacefully at Ambikapur. After few years of the marriage the respondent alleged the applicant and his family members on the ground of cruelty and in consequence to that returned to her parental house on dated 13.11.2013. the applicant accordingly requested the respondent to return her matrimonial house and made every effort to bring her back to his house and reside peacefully. The respondent in return denied the request of the applicant and his family members and refused to return to her matrimonial house. the applicant left with no other option except to file the application of restitution of conjugal rights before the learned family Court. That the proceeding took place and notice was issued to the respondent and accordingly the learned family court was inclined to allow the said application of the applicant and further directed the respondent to return to her matrimonial house within the passing of 15 of the judgment dated 05.08.2015. The respondent refused to comply with the Judgment dated 05.08.2015 passed by the learned Family Court and never returned to her matrimonial house. The respondent on the consequence filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC, thereby demanding maintenance from the applicant. The application of the respondent was allowed on dated 06.08.2015 and learned Family Court granted her compensation of Rs. 5,000/- ignoring the fact that the applicant was working as Asst. Sub-Inspector and was incurring salary of Rs. 24.000/- per month and he has to maintain his parents and his elder brother who is handicapped and cannot earn his own bread and 3 butter. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the applicant has to meet out the medical requirements of his parents and his elder brother. The applicant against the Judgment of maintenance, preferred Revision before this Court which was registered as CRR No.722/2015 and was dismissed by this Court. The applicant accordingly preferred application under Section 13 (i)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act for granting of divorce which was registered as Case No. 43 A/2016. The Learned Family Court was kind enough to grant decree of divorce in favor of the applicant on the ground of desertion and has particularly pointed out that the respondent after 13.11.2013 has made no effort to return back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, the respondent also filed an application under Section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, and the learned Family Court concerned by passing the impugned order allowed the said application and and maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 8,000/- per month, which was directed to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the respondent herself left the house of the applicant without there being any reasonable cause and she did not return back to her home, and she has willfully refused to live with the applicant without assigning any reason and without bringing anything substantial on record. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and 4 supports the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 61/2021, whereby the learned Family Court, allowed the application under Section 127 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the respondent has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parites, their earning capacity, number of dependents on them and expected expenses granted Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 11. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal