1 2025:CGHC:47291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 659 of 2020 Rohit Meshram S/o Dilip Mehram Aged About 32 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar Near Bread Factory Police Station Tikarapara Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Non Applicant In The Trial Court) Through Next Friend Shri Dilip Meshram S/o Birju Lal Meshram Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Pappu Bakery Chhattisgarh Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Pratibha Thakur W/o Rohit Meshram Aged About 30 Years R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar Near Bread Factory Police Station Tikarapara Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikas Patel, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been 9led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure R-1), passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge Family Court Raipur District Raipur (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 248/2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent 9led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court seeking maintenance, along with an interim application, alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, who had deserted her, subjected her to cruelty, and failed to maintain her. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared and contested the claim, denying the allegations and stating that the respondent herself left his house as she did not get along with his parents, that she is capable of earning, and that he, being unemployed and su<ering from mental illness, is unable to pay maintenance. After hearing both parties, considering the evidence and material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 23.08.2019, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month 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 dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure R-1) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as it is neither well-reasoned nor a speaking order. It is contended that during cross-examination, the respondent herself admitted that the applicant had su<ered serious spinal and brain injuries, and su?cient medical documents were produced 3 before the Family Court, yet the same were ignored while granting maintenance. It is further submitted that the respondent also admitted to being employed and earning, but this vital fact was not considered. The order has been passed solely on the pleadings of the respondent while completely overlooking the submissions and evidence of the applicant. It is also argued that the quantum of maintenance awarded is on the higher side, especially when the respondent is residing with her parents, who are capable of maintaining her, and the applicant, being unemployed and su<ering from medical issues, is unable to pay. Moreover, the Family Court failed to properly assess or determine the income of the applicant before directing him to pay maintenance. 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 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (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 learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings, evidence, and material placed on record by both parties, rightly held that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and has been deserted without any justi9able cause. The Court further observed that the applicant failed to discharge his legal obligation to maintain 4 his wife and did not produce any cogent evidence to establish his alleged mental illness or inability to earn. The contention that the respondent is capable of earning was also not substantiated by su?cient proof. Accordingly, the Family Court, by a well-reasoned and lawful order dated 23.08.2019, correctly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent to ensure her sustenance. 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. 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