1 2025:CGHC:41496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1438 of 2024 Kishan Kumar Divya S/o Late Kaleshwar Prasad Divya Aged About 42 Years R/o Sector- 4 Tiyep-A-2-137 Balko Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Ranjana Divya W/o Kishan Kumar Divya Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhadrapara, Purana Gurughasidas Chowk, Post Office- Balko, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal 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 order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learned Family RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Court, Korba (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal case. No. 02/2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the respondent/wife and the applicant/husband was solemnized in the year 1997 as per Hindu customs, and from the wedlock two sons, namely Ambedker and Chirag Kumar Divya, were born. After the birth of the younger son, the applicant started subjecting the respondent to cruelty by beating her, consuming liquor daily, and creating an atmosphere of unrest in the matrimonial home, repeatedly attempting to drive her out. However, considering the future of her children, the respondent continued to tolerate the harassment. Thereafter, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance, contending that though she holds a medical card from BALCO Plant, due to her serious ailments she has to undergo treatment elsewhere, and the applicant/husband, employed as WTP with a gross salary of Rs.1,52,659/– and net take-home salary of Rs.1,05,812/–, has failed to bear her expenses. The wife, therefore, sought maintenance of Rs.50,000/– per month. The applicant/husband, in reply before the Family Court, denied cruelty and alleged that the respondent was residing separately without sufficient cause. However, upon appreciation of evidence, the learned Family Court found substance in the claim of the respondent/wife and allowed her application, directing the applicant/husband to pay Rs.15,000/– per month as maintenance, which is the subject matter of the present revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case, inasmuch as the Court committed gross illegality in solely relying upon the oral testimony of the respondent while ignoring the material evidence on record. It is contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has been living separately without sufficient cause and has even initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. It is further urged that the applicant is employed in a private job as WTP and had taken a loan of Rs.12,00,000/– in the year 2021 for the marriage of his brother Nagraj, and another loan of Rs.20,00,000/– in the year 2023 from ICICI Bank to repay the earlier debt, for which he pays an installment of Rs.40,000/– per month. After such deductions, his net salary is only Rs.12,000/– with which he has to manage the expenses of his family, and he has no other source of income. Despite these facts, the Family Court erroneously held him to be in a sound financial position. It is also submitted that the non- applicant has already taken possession of the house and land of the applicant, and her allegations of cruelty and intoxication are false and unsubstantiated. Thus, the impugned judgment suffers from gross perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.). 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and evidence on record while passing the impugned order. The marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1997, and from the wedlock two children were born. The material on record clearly revealed that after the birth of the younger son, the applicant/husband subjected the respondent/wife to cruelty by consuming liquor habitually, creating a hostile atmosphere at home, and making repeated attempts to oust her from the matrimonial house. Despite such harassment, the respondent continued to reside with him for the sake of her children. Considering her health condition, medical requirements, and the fact that she was compelled to seek treatment outside despite holding a BALCO Plant medical card, the learned Family Court rightly held that she was entitled to maintenance. The Court also took into account that the applicant/husband is employed with a gross salary of Rs.1,52,659/– and a net salary of Rs.1,05,812/–, and therefore has sufficient means to maintain his wife. Hence, the grant of Rs.15,000/– per month as maintenance is just, reasonable, and well within the settled principles of law. 8. Considering the submission 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 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan