1 2025:CGHC:36886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1556 of 2019 Sunil Yadav S/o Shri Ramji Yadav Aged About 33 Years Occupation Service On Contact, By Caste Raut, R/o Rajapara Kanker, Civil And Revenue District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Puja Yadav @ Shalini Yadav W/o Shri Sunil Yadav Aged About 22 Years By Caste Raut, R/o Rajapara Kanker, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Present R/o Village Parsuli, Post Kharega, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court Kanker (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.31/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,800/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact in the case that the applicant and the respondent got married on 27.04.2018 according to social customs in village Parsuli, and they are husband and wife. After the marriage, the respondent lived with the applicant in Rajapara, Kanker, and carried out their matrimonial life together. The applicant is working as a contractual employee in Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur, and his family owns 6.30 acres of land in village Bardewari. Apart from the undisputed facts, the respondent’s application states that 20-25 days after the marriage, the respondent was subjected to abuse and physical assault by her sister-in-law Lalita Yadav, nanad Kavita Yadav, and her husband. However, the respondent tolerated it. In September 2018, the applicant’s two sisters again physically assaulted the respondent, and the matter was settled by the locals, society members, and the respondent’s father. The applicant, his brother, and father dropped the respondent at her parental home for the Teej festival, saying that they would take her back after her eye treatment. The applicant and his family members started mentally and physically harassing the respondent, leveling false allegations about her eyesight. The respondent filed a complaint against the applicant and his sisters in the Yadav Samaj, Kanker, on 25.11.2018, alleging physical and mental harassment. 3 3. The Yadav Samaj held a meeting on 02/12/2018, where it was found that the respondent was indeed subjected to physical and mental harassment by the applicnat and his sisters. The meeting advised the applicant not to harass the respondent in the future, and the applicant gave a written undertaking to this effect. The respondent further stated in her application that the Yadav Samaj appointed Santosh Yadav, Tikam Yadav, Naresh Yadav, and Hemlal to oversee that the respondent was not harassed again. After the meeting, the respondent started living with her husband in her matrimonial home. However, the applicant did not talk to her, refused to eat food cooked by her, did not drink water touched by her, slept in a separate room, and did not have any physical relationship with her, thereby subjecting her to physical and mental harassment. The respondent, being fed up with this situation, informed her father and society members Santosh Yadav, Shishupal Yadav, Tikam Yadav, and Naresh Yadav about the applicant’s behavior. The applicant and his family members forced the respondent to write that she wanted to go to her parental home. The respondent again filed a complaint in the Yadav Samaj, Kanker, against the applicant’s behavior. In a meeting held on 24.02.2019, the applicnat accepted the society's decision, and the society decided that the applicant would return the respondent’s streedhan and pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent by the 15th of every month. The applicant accepted this decision and signed the agreement. 4 However, the applicant failed to pay the maintenance amount as per the social settlement, and the respondent filed a complaint in the society, which issued a notice to the applicant. 4. A social meeting was held on 06.04.2019 based on the application filed by the respondent, where the applicant refused to pay maintenance and also refused to sign the attendance sheet of the meeting. The respondent has been living separately from her husband at her parental home due to physical and mental harassment by the applicant and his family members. After dropping her off at her parental home for the Teej festival, the applicant never came to take her back. The respondent is facing difficulties in maintaining herself and her livelihood. The applicant is working as an accountant in the office of Janpad Panchayat Bhanupratappur and receives a monthly salary of Rs. 16,445/-. Additionally, he owns approximately 6.30 acres of agricultural land in village Bardewari, tehsil Kanker, which yields an annual income of Rs. 2,50,000/- from paddy crops. The applicant is capable of maintaining the applicant. The respondent and applicant both resided in Rajapara, Kanker, until the final time after their marriage, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The respondent has prayed for maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant to sustain her livelihood. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the wife / respondent. The Family Court after considering the 5 evidence adduced by the parties has granted maintenance to the respondent as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,800/- per month in favor of the respondent, considering the applicant is a contractual employee with a monthly salary of barely Rs. 14,000/-, out of which he has to support two sisters and an unmarried brother, further the monthly income of the applicant was not proved, based on the documents attached with the reply and proved by the applicant, it is evident that the respondent refused to reside with the applicant. He further submits that the respondent left the applicant's house without any valid reason and is unwilling to reside with him. The order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the settled principles of law and is not supported by the material evidence on record. The respondent and her witnesses failed to produce legal evidence to establish valid reasons for residing separately. Since she herself did not want to reside with the applicant, she is not entitled to any maintenance amount. He also submits that the learned trial court failed to consider that the respondent was working as a nurse and earning before marriage. She herself was not adjusted to the applicant's large family and left the house. Given her education and qualifications as a nursing course pass-out, she is capable of supporting herself and is not entitled to any maintenance amount. 6 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,800/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that it is undisputed fact that respondent is the wife of the applicant and she has sufficient reason to reside separately from the applicant as evidence in the case proves that the applicant and his family members quarreled, physically assaulted, and fought with the respondent at their home. The applicant forced the respondent to leave his house over a minor issue of her impaired eyesight. Furthermore, based on the evidence presented by both parties in the case, it is established that the respondent is educated up to B.S.C and was employed before marriage. However, the applicant failed to prove that the respondent is currently earning through any job. This suggests that the applicant is currently not working and is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the 7 wife / respondent is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which is not on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil