1 2025:CGHC:47828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1147 of 2025 Digeshwar Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Naresh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 35 Years R/o Rajapara, Kanker, Tahsil And Distt - Kanker Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Village - Saragaon, Thana And Tahsil - Chhura, Distt. - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Diksha Dewangan W/o Shri Digeshwar Lal Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Mahadevghat Para, In Front of Anand Sofa, Jagdalpur, Thana Kotwali, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh 2. Sparsh Dewangan S/o Shri Digeshwar Lal Dewangan Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Diksha Dewangan, R/o Mahadevghat Para, In Front of Anand Sofa, Jagdalpur, Thana Kotwali, Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, 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 revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order of maintenance dated 04.07.2025 passed in Criminal M.J.C. No. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.18 19:06:57 +0530 2 37/2024 by the Family Court Jagdalpur in respect of the Respondent No. 1 wife may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant with respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 16.04.2015 as per the customs prevailing in their community, and out of the said wedlock, respondent No. 2 was born on 23.01.2018. It is an admitted position that the applicant is employed in the Police Department, whereas the respondent No. 1/wife is working as a nurse in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. The respondent No. 1/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant had been having an affair with another woman even prior to the marriage and that he used to frequently talk to her over the phone. It was further alleged that on several occasions he assaulted the respondent No. 1/wife and pressurized her to leave her job. It is also alleged that in June 2023, the applicant came to her house in an intoxicated condition, assaulted her, and abused her. She claims to have made every possible effort to resolve the dispute, but the counseling failed, and since July 2023 the applicant has deserted her and has not provided any maintenance to her or their child. She further averred that the applicant, being employed in the Police Department, is earning Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month, and therefore prayed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month towards maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the Family Court, admitted the marriage, but denied all other allegations levelled against him. He stated that he had arranged for the nursing education of his wife, and in the year 2020 she was appointed as a Staff Nurse in Jagdalpur Hospital. Since then, she started residing at her parental home (mayka) and developed an affair with one Anish Bande. When this fact came to 3 the knowledge of the applicant, the respondent wife threatened to falsely implicate him in criminal cases. Further, when the applicant went to meet her, the wife and her family members misbehaved with him. Thus, she herself has been residing separately without sufficient cause. The applicant is ready and willing to keep her, but she has refused to leave her parental house. Hence, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. Learned Family Court recorded evidence in the matter. The respondent examined herself, and upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Court recorded a finding that the respondent had sufficient reasons to reside separately. In para 22 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court held that the applicant had deserted her, and therefore she was entitled to maintenance. The Court further held that the respondent wife was earning Rs. 14,000/- per month on a contractual appointment, but considering that the applicant was employed as a constable in the Police Department, the wife had a right to maintain a similar standard of living. Accordingly, the Court awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 9,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 2 (son), from the date of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record in its proper perspective and has passed the impugned order in a perverse and arbitrary manner, thereby causing grave miscarriage of justice to the applicant. Learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts by not applying Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which specifically disentitles a wife from claiming maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause. He submits that respondent-wife is a salaried professional, employed as a Staff Nurse, 4 earning a regular monthly salary of Rs. 14,000/-, and is therefore capable of maintaining herself. The Family Court, despite recording this fact, has illegally awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. The finding of the learned Family Court that the wife has “sufficient reasons to reside separately” is perverse, misconceived, and not supported by evidence on record. Due to her employment, she started residing at her mayka and never returned to the matrimonial home. When the applicant attempted to resume marital relations, the respondent and her family members abused him, did not permit him to stay there, and even prevented him from speaking with his son. The applicant has consistently expressed his willingness to cohabit with the respondent-wife, which was neither considered nor rebutted by the Family Court. He also submits that the Family Court has misapplied the principle of “living status” while awarding maintenance. This principle is intended to apply in cases where the wife is unemployed or without sufficient independent income. Extending the same to a working, salaried wife earning a substantial amount is against the spirit of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has caused undue hardship to the applicant. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended as a measure of social justice only for a wife who is unable to maintain herself, and not as a windfall in addition to her independent income. He further submits the applicant is not challenging the maintenance awarded to his son; he is only questioning the maintenance granted to the wife, who is an earning woman residing separately without sufficient reason, while the applicant is ready and willing to maintain her in the matrimonial home. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 5 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 respondents 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