1 2025:CGHC:47303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 301 of 2020 Jitendra Patel S/o Kamleshwar Prasad Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o L.I.G. 102, Dindayal Awas, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Lalita Patel W/o Jitendra Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Ekta Colony, Near D.L.S. College, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No.509/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the non-applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 3,000/- per month to non-applicant/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the non-applicant (wife) filed an PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:43:29 +0530 2 application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month from her husband. It was alleged in the application that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 06.05.2017 at Bilaspur. After marriage, the wife resided at her matrimonial home in Village Loharsi, while the husband lived at his workplace in Korba. Upon the non-fulfillment of demands made by the husband’s family, the wife was subjected to cruelty. In November 2017, the husband and wife moved to Janjgir, where the husband started a computer business, reportedly earning Rs. 60,000/- per month. The wife further alleged that the husband was in contact with a woman named Jyoti, and when she objected, he physically assaulted her. Consequently, she lodged a complaint at Janjgir Police Station, after which the husband drove her out of the house. The wife has no independent source of income, while the husband earns well from his business and also owns agricultural land. Hence, she prayed for maintenance. 3. In reply, the applicant/husband denied all allegations. He contended that there was no demand for dowry and no act of cruelty. He alleged that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and is in a relationship with one Deviprasad Yadav. He further claimed that the wife is employed at a private institution, earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He also stated that he has no independent source of income and that the wife’s application is baseless and liable to be dismissed. After recording the evidence of both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the wife is 3 living separately for valid reasons, and thus entitled to maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The impugned order passed by the learned Court below is apparently erroneous and bad in law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has erred in law in allowing the application for maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the wife was not subjected to cruelty on account of any dowry demand. The learned Family Court did not appreciate the fact that the wife was not driven out of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfillment of dowry demands. She is residing separately without sufficient reason and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the husband is earning only Rs. 4,000/- per month and resides in a rented house, making him financially incapable of paying Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant is merely a trainee at Tiru Developers Pvt. Ltd., receiving a stipend of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The ownership of the shop and property alleged to be his actually belongs to his brother, and thus, he cannot be presumed to have income from it. The husband pays rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month for his accommodation in Janjgir, which is supported by documentary evidence. The wife is in a relationship with one Devi Prasad, and several documents submitted before the trial court support this fact. She left her matrimonial home on account of this relationship and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court failed to consider relevant 4 documentary and oral evidence and arrived at a perverse finding in granting maintenance. The husband is not financially capable of paying the maintenance amount as directed by the Family Court, given his meager income. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the applicant stated in Paragraph 07 of the impugned order that the non-applicant left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and is residing at her parental house. However, in Paragraph 30, he denied the allegation that he assaulted the respondent and forced her out because he did not want a child. He also admitted that due to the assault, the non-applicant lodged a complaint at Janjgir Police Station. Therefore, it is not proven that the respondent is refusing to live with her husband, the applicant, without sufficient reason. As a result of the above analysis, the wife (non-applicant) has been able to establish the facts of her case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, it is determined that a social and legal duty/responsibility is to be imposed upon the applicant towards the non-applicant/wife. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record be transmitted to the Family Court concerned within a period of 48 hours for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti