1 2025:CGHC:10716 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 295 of 2025 Rajesh Laskar S/o Late Mohan Lal Laskar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Karma, Chhuihapara, P.S. Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Manisha Laskar W/o Rajesh Laskar Aged About 30 Years Caste Rohidas, R/o- Ramsagarpara, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant/Husband : Mr. Ahmad Hussain, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. Applicant-husband has filed this instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed in MJC No.122/2022 by which learned Family Court, Korba, (CG) has directed the applicant to pay sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent- wife. 2 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the respondent- wife has filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month, stating therein that she is legally married wife of non- applicant/applicant (herein) and their marriage was solemnized on 11.03.2012. After marriage, she went to the house of the non- applicant for performing matrimonial obligations, but after two years of marriage, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws on account of demand of dowry, therefore, she left her matrimonial house and went to her parental house and started residing there, but she is facing difficulty in livelihood as she has no source of income, whereas the non-applicant is having sufficient source of income and also holding agricultural land, thereby earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to her, therefore, she has filed an application for grant of maintenance to which notice has been served upon the non-applicant-husband, but he was not appeared before the Court, however, application has been moved on his behalf for relaxation of his non-appearance. 3. After considering the pleadings made in the application, the learned Family Court vide impugned order has passed the ex-parte order, partly allowed the application of the applicant-wife and directed the respondent-husband to pay sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant-wife. Hence this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband submits that impugned 3 order is perverse and contrary to the law as the learned family Court has not given any opportunity to the non-applicant/husband (applicant herein) for his defense before passing the impugned order. The respondent-wife has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the applicant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba, Chhattisgarh, in which, the applicant-husband has filed the written argument and denied all the averment pleaded in such application. The respondent has deliberately filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance with false and fabricated ground/allegation to mentally harass the applicant. The applicant has always try to manage his matrimonial dispute, but the respondent has refused to live with him and left her matrimonial house, started living in her parental house. As the respondent-wife is living separately from the applicant-husband with unreasonable cause, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the applicant-husband. The applicant is not having sufficient source of income and agricultural land as stated by the respondent- wife in her maintenance application and, therefore, applicant is unable to give maintenance amount to the respondent as awarded by the family Court, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and impugned order be set-aside. 5. Perusal of impugned order would show that learned Family Court has recorded a finding that based on report lodged by the respondent-wife before the concerned Police Station, offence/crime 4 has been registered against the applicant-husband and his family members, further in the mediation centre, applicant was not ready to live with the respondent-wife, therefore, mediation could not take place. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the applicant, finding recorded by the family Court while passing the impugned order that applicant-husband is having tractor which was purchased by his father and he is also having agricultural land, this Court is of the considered view that the amount so granted to the respondent-wife by family Court cannot said to be on higher side, therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-