1 2025:CGHC:52463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1289 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Lange S/o Shri Narayan Singh Lange Aged About 31 Years R/o Jeevan Colony, Ward No. 45, Near Shivam Stores, House No. 4, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sangam W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Lange Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 08. College Road Atal Awas Tehsil Dongargaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate.. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.10.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 28.07.2025 Passed in Criminal MJC No. 210/2021 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.29 15:14:24 +0530 2 may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent on 12.02.2018 as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, due to certain disputes, the respondent could not adjust with the applicant and left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started residing separately and 9led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 03.12.2021. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2025, whereby maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent from the date of 9ling of the application. The respondent 9led the said application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that, after the marriage, the applicant used to unnecessarily argue with her over trivial domestic matters. He would often taunt her, saying that he had married against his will, and told her to remain only as a daughter-in-law and never try to become a wife or mother. Whenever she tried to say anything, he used to threaten her. It was further averred in the application that the applicant used to abuse her, prevented her from visiting her maternal home, and doubted her character. Therefore, she started residing at her maternal home on 29.08.2019. During that period, her grandmother passed away, and when the said information was conveyed to the applicant, he asked her not to come to Rajnandgaon. The respondent further stated that she has no source of income and is completely dependent upon her mother, whereas the applicant is employed under the Prime Minister Kaushal Yojana and also works as an LIC agent, earning around Rs. 50,000/- per month. The applicant’s father is serving in the Police Department as a Head Constable, and the family owns two houses in Rajnandgaon from which they earn rental income. Hence, she claimed Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance. 3 5. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and 9led his written statement, denying all the averments. He submitted that, after two months of marriage, the respondent started quarrelling with him over petty issues. She used to refuse physical relations, abuse him, and threaten to send him to jail and take away all his property. He further stated that the respondent used to talk over the phone for long durations and did not ful9ll her family responsibilities, and when advised, she used to threaten him. On 28.09.2019, when the applicant returned home at night, he found her talking on the phone with their neighbour, Ramesh Meshram, and upon confronting her regarding obscene messages and conversations, she started 9ghting with him. 6. The applicant further stated in his written statement that, on 30.08.2019, he lodged a report at Police Station Dongargaon and also before the Women Cell. He further stated that the respondent is a highly educated woman, holding a B.Sc. Nursing degree, and earns Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month by working in hospitals. At present, she is employed as a StaE Nurse at SECR Bilaspur Railway Hospital, earning Rs. 56,000/- per month, and therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of maintenance. Hence, the applicant prayed for dismissal of the application. 7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court recorded their statements and, relying upon the statement of the respondent, held that the applicant is liable to maintain her. Accordingly, the learned Court passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the date of the application, i.e., 03.12.2021. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court, 4 Rajnandgaon, erred in passing the order directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of the respondent, despite the fact that the respondent is residing separately without any reasonable cause and is capable of maintaining herself. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent is a highly educated lady who earns a suGcient amount to maintain herself. It is further submitted that she voluntarily left her matrimonial home and used to misbehave with the applicant. The learned Family Court further failed to appreciate that the applicant himself is a victim of harassment at the hands of the respondent, as she used to threaten him with false criminal cases and also threatened to dispossess him of his property. Moreover, she used to talk to another man over the phone, which caused mental harassment to the applicant. He also submits that the learned trial Court has erred in directing that the maintenance amount shall be paid from the date of the application, i.e., 03.12.2021. The said direction is improper and contrary to law because, vide order dated 21.02.2023, the applicant was already directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month, which he has duly paid to the respondent till the passing of the 9nal order. Therefore, the direction to pay maintenance from the date of the application is bad in the eyes of law. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. 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. 5 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek