1 2025:CGHC:29529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 72 of 2018 Purano @ Purno S/o Shri Manglu Aged About 57 Years Caste Koda R/o Village Koelibahal Post Pandaripani, Thana and Tahsil Saraipali, Civil and Revenue District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Sardhavati W/o Shri Purano @ Purno Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Pandaripani Post Pandaripani, Thana And Tahsil Saraipali, Civil And Revenue Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel the applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.09.2017 may kindly be seta side and the application filed by the non applicant under section 125 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and non-applicant were married around 35 years ago as per customary rites. After 12–13 years of childless marriage, the applicant allegedly began harassing the non-applicant by calling her sterile and eventually remarried, ousting her from the matrimonial home. The non-applicant, claiming to be without any source of income and deserted since 2016, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. She asserted that the applicant owns 6 acres of agricultural land, works as a mason, and earns approximately Rs. 1,52,000/- annually. In his written statement, the applicant denied the allegations, claiming that the non-applicant left his home without any valid reason despite his efforts to reconcile. After recording the evidence of both parties, the Family Court, relying on the testimony of the non-applicant, held the applicant liable to pay maintenance and accordingly directed him to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month to the non-applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court awarding maintenance is erroneous, unjust, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The applicant had categorically denied all the allegations in his reply and court statement, and through his own evidence and that of his witnesses, had established that the non- applicant voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. The Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and overlooked the fact that the non-applicant had herself 3 given consent for the applicant’s remarriage due to their childless marriage of over 30 years, and only after the second marriage did she choose to live separately. There is no legal evidence produced by the non-applicant or her witnesses to prove that she was harassed or that the applicant refused to maintain her. The order was passed ex parte without due consideration of the provisions under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance if she resides separately without just cause. The judgment is perverse, based on incorrect appreciation of facts and evidence, and in violation of judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus causing irreparable loss to the applicant and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the order of maintenance in favour of the non-applicant after properly appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record. Considering that the applicant and non- applicant were married around 35 years ago and that the non- applicant was subjected to mental cruelty and ultimately deserted after years of childlessness, the Court found sufficient justification for her to live separately. The applicant’s subsequent remarriage and failure to maintain his legally wedded wife further supported the non-applicant’s claim. Despite the applicant’s denial, there was no convincing evidence to disprove the non-applicant’s assertion that 4 she had no source of income and was unable to sustain herself. In these circumstances, the direction of the Family Court to award Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is just, reasonable, and in accordance with settled legal principles. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan