1 2025:CGHC:49168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1172 of 2025 Vinod Kumar Jangde S/o Dhansingh Jangde Aged About 25 Years R/o Murtipara Tendua, Post- Matasgara, Tahsil- Kota, District Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant versus Smt. Priyanka Jangde W/o Vinod Kumar Aged About 25 Years R/o Murtipara Tendua, Post- Matasgara, Tahsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur C.G. At Present R/o Village- Domanpur, Post Office- Dashrangpur, Police Station- Jarhagaon, Tahsil- Mungeli, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Resham Lal Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2025, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having been solemnized on 04.05.2021. It was alleged that after marriage, she RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, and ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home on 11.05.2022, after which she has been living at her parental house without any means of livelihood, while the applicant, having agricultural land and sufficient income of about Rs.4,00,000/- per annum, failed to provide any financial support. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations, stating that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, as she was unwilling to live in the joint family, frequently quarreled over caste-related issues, avoided household work, and pressured him to live at her parental house as a “gharjamai.” It was further contended that she falsely accused the applicant and his family of dowry harassment, aborted a two-month pregnancy without their consent, and consistently refused to return despite counseling sessions and social meetings. Earlier, by order dated 08.05.2024, the Family Court rejected her application, holding that she was living separately without sufficient cause. The respondent preferred a criminal revision, and vide order dated 06.03.2025, the Hon’ble Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon reconsideration, the Family Court, vide impugned order dated 19.06.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of application, i.e., 07.07.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 is bad in law, arbitrary, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore liable to be set 3 aside. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has been living separately without any reasonable cause and is, thus, not entitled to maintenance. Despite several efforts by the applicant, including counseling sessions and social meetings, the respondent refused to return to the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the respondent is a healthy lady capable of maintaining herself and cannot claim maintenance as a matter of right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The applicant has limited income, yet the Family Court awarded an excessive amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. He further submits that the respondent frequently quarreled with the applicant, humiliated his sister-in-law over caste issues, avoided household work, refused to use utensils handled by the sister-in-law, and even accused her of practicing witchcraft. She also pressured the applicant to live at her parental house as a “gharjamai” and opposed living in a joint family because the applicant’s brother married a woman from another caste. It is argued that these facts and evidence were ignored by the Family Court, leading to an erroneous conclusion, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions of both parties, has rightly directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the 4 respondent from the date of application. The Court appropriately observed that while the respondent has been living separately at her parental home, she continues to require financial support for her livelihood, given her inability to maintain herself independently. The Court also balanced the applicant’s financial capacity, including his income from agricultural land and other sources, with the reasonable needs of the respondent, arriving at a fair and just maintenance amount. By exercising its discretion in accordance with law under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court ensured that the respondent receives sustenance while not imposing an undue burden on the applicant. The order is, therefore, just, proper, and well within the jurisdiction of the Court. 6. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan