1 2025:CGHC:47276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 634 of 2020 Mukund Pandey S/o Rajnarayan Pandey, Aged About 28 Years R/o - Plot No. 3, Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Priti Pandey W/o Mukund Pandey Aged About 28 Years R/o - 99 / D, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Srishti Ahire, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Srishti Ahire, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2019, passed by the court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Durg (C.G.), presiding o+cer Yashwant Washnikar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 495/2015, or reduced the maintenance amount by suitably modify the order, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The respondent 9led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, alleging that the applicant subjected her to cruelty and harassment for dowry, assaulted her, and eventually expelled her from the matrimonial home. She further claimed that the applicant is 9nancially well-o<, earning around Rs. 50,000/- per month, whereas she has no independent source of income and is, therefore, entitled to maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and speci9cally contended that the respondent is employed as a teacher at Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) and also earns additional income through private tuition, making her capable of maintaining herself. However, without recording the applicant’s evidence, the learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed an order dated 07.06.2019 directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to 3 the facts, evidence, and law applicable to the case and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and passed the order in an arbitrary manner. The respondent failed to prove the exact income of the applicant, yet the court, without any cogent evidence, presumed his earning capacity and awarded maintenance on the higher side, which is unjust and beyond the applicant’s 9nancial means. It is further contended that the learned Family Court, without even recording the applicant’s evidence, proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is in direct violation of the settled principles of law and natural justice. Learned counsel further argues that the Family Court did not decide the matter with due consideration of the facts and circumstances but adopted an arbitrary approach in allowing the application. Hence, the order is illegal, unsustainable, and liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court. 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 First Addtional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 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 respondent, being the legally wedded wife of the applicant, 9led an 4 application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, assaulted by the applicant, and ultimately expelled from the matrimonial home. She further stated that the applicant is 9nancially sound, earning around Rs. 50,000/- per month, while she has no independent source of income and is, therefore, entitled to maintenance. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and claimed that the respondent is employed as a teacher at Indira Gandhi Higher Secondary School, Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) and also earns additional income from private tuition, making her capable of maintaining herself. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the evidence placed on record, and the circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court found that the respondent had suEcient cause to live separately and that the applicant, having adequate means, failed to maintain her. Accordingly, by a well- reasoned order dated 07.06.2019, the learned Family Court rightly directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent, which is just, proper, and within the applicant’s capacity to pay. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 9nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in9rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 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 records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan