1 2025:CGHC:32647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1622 of 2019 Vishadhanand S/o Ambikaprasad Tripathi Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Tendubhata, Post Mohgaon, Tahsil Saza, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Savita Tripathi W/o Vishadhanand Aged About 45 Years R/o Purani Basti Near Pond, Bhanpuri, Khamtarai, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Laxmin Tondey, 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 impugned order ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.15 11:13:31 +0530 2 dated 05.09.2019, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a one-time maintenance amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the applicant, pleading inter alia that their marriage was solemnized on 12.07.1989 as per the Hindu Marriage Act. They have one daughter who is residing with the respondent, and she is working in I.D.B.I. Bank. It was further pleaded that the applicant and the respondent have been living separately for the past two years. It was also pleaded that the applicant is working as an astrologer and has other sources of income, and that he owns 40 acres of land. It is respectfully submitted that the respondent, without any sufficient reason, has refused to live with her husband, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant. The applicant has no source of income. 4. The applicant filed his reply before the learned Family Court, pleading inter alia that in the year 2013, the respondent, without any reason, left the applicant’s house and denied the contents of the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant has also submitted a complaint before Police Station Khamtari, District Raipur, against the respondent seeking registration of a case under the Domestic Violence Act. It is categorically stated by the applicant in his statement that the respondent, without any sufficient reason, has refused to live with the applicant. It is further submitted that the respondent is working as an Anganwadi worker and earns a sufficient salary for her maintenance, whereas the applicant has no particular source of income. Therefore, the respondent is not 3 entitled to any maintenance from the applicant. However, the learned Family Court has not properly considered the case of the applicant. 5. The learned Family Court, vide its order dated 05.09.2019, partially allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month 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 based on evidence, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court suffers from factual and legal infirmities. He further submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by the applicant. Learned Family Court has not considered the statements of the applicant and his witnesses. Thus, the learned Family Court has committed a legal error, and the order of the learned Family Court is against the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is illegal, bad in law, and deserves to be set aside. He also submits that the respondent, without any sufficient reason, has refused to live with the applicant, and the applicant has no source of income. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 4 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 on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek