1 2025:CGHC:47546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1134 of 2025 Pankaj Ratre S/o Shri Gaindram Ratre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Garadih, Post and Tahsil- Saja, District - Bemetara C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Durga Daharwal W/o Pankaj Ratre Aged About 29 Years R/o S B I Road, Yellow Building, Opposite Bolbam Grocery Stores, Ramnagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt.- Durg C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No. - 292/2020, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), stating that she was married to the applicant on 06.02.2019 at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, as per Hindu rites PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.17 14:16:41 +0530 2 and customs. After marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife. Hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court for the sake of brevity. It was alleged by the respondent/wife that after the marriage, the applicant/husband did not maintain her properly for nearly three years. Further allegations were made that the applicant mentally harassed and abused her, claimed that she could not bear a child, and threatened to marry another woman. The respondent also stated that she had lodged a police complaint on 25.07.2019 against the applicant and his family for assault, followed by another report at Mahila Thana, Durg. Thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home with her father. It was further claimed that the applicant is employed in a private job earning Rs.20,000 per month and owns 2 acres of agricultural land. Additionally, his family collectively owns 15 acres of land, from which they earn approximately Rs.6,00,000 annually, thereby possessing sufficient income and resources. 3. In reply, the applicant/husband denied all allegations and stated that the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and failed to adjust in the family. He claimed that the respondent is employed at Golden Gym, earning Rs.15,000 per month, while he himself is a practicing advocate in Durg District and Sessions Court for the past two years with minimal income. He further submitted that he was willing to maintain the marriage, and therefore, not liable to pay maintenance. On 14.02.2025, the Family Court partially allowed the application and directed the 3 applicant/husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the impugned order(s), the applicant has preferred the present revision on the ground that the learned Family Court erred in assessing the facts and evidence. The respondent obtained the maintenance order based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations, and the applicant's financial position was not properly appreciated. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in awarding maintenance of ₹5,000 per month, which is on the higher side, considering the financial condition of the applicant. The Court failed to properly appreciate the submissions and evidence presented by the applicant. The applicant and his family have never ill-treated, abused, or harassed the respondent. In fact, the respondent willfully left the applicant’s home and returned to her parental house at Balod with her father, without informing the applicant. The applicant has always been willing to take responsibility for the respondent and has repeatedly visited her to bring her back, but she has refused to return. Despite this, the Trial Court erroneously held that the applicant had sufficient means to pay maintenance, while ignoring his actual financial hardship. The applicant is facing severe financial difficulties, and imposing maintenance from the date of application would place an unbearable burden on him. It is relevant to note that the Family Court had earlier rejected the respondent’s interim maintenance application on 17.03.2022 (Annexure A-2). Yet, the same Court later passed a recovery order dated 01.03.2025, directing payment of ₹2,99,000 4 from the date of application, this is erroneous, particularly when the interim relief had already been declined (Annexure A-3). The learned Trial Court also failed to consider that the applicant genuinely attempted reconciliation and was ready to resume marital life, but the respondent declined. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities, and in view of the grounds mentioned above and others to be urged at the time of hearing, the order deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti