1 2025:CGHC:2703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1063 of 2023 Abhishek @ Raja Shukla S/o Rishikesh Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Durga Mandir Chowk, Pithora, Tahsil And Police Station Pithora, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Suman @ Shraddhanjali Shukla W/o Abhishek @ Raja Shukla Aged About 26 Years Ward No.7, Durga Mandir Chowk, Pithora, Tahsil And Police Station-Pithora, District- Mahasamund, (C.G.), At Present R/o Ward No. 4, Sheetla Para, Talkies Gali Simga, Tahsil- Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant/Husband : Mr. Pradeep Rathore, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. Applicant-husband has filed this instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.428/2019 by which learned Family Court, Balodabazar, Distt -Balodabazar-Bhatapra, (CG) has directed the applicant to pay 2 sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance. 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 stating therein that she is legally married wife of non-applicant/applicant (herein) and their marriage was solemnized on 11.07.2016. After marriage, she went to the house of the non-applicant for performing matrimonial obligations where 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 as he was working as news agent and thereby earning Rs.50,000/- per month, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to her, therefore, she has filed an application for grant of maintenance. Upon serving of notice, non-applicant submitted his reply and denied the allegation levelled in the application. 3. After considering the pleadings made in the application, the learned Family Court vide impugned order has partly allowed the application of the applicant-wife and directed the respondent-husband to pay sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant-wife. Hence this revision petition. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant-husband submits that impugned order is perverse and contrary to the law. Respondent-wife has lodged complaint against the applicant and his family members, based upon which FIR was registered against them for offence under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and they are facing trial in that case. The respondent-wife 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 permanent source of income 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. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned award. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the applicant, the fact that based on complaint made by respondent-wife, offence under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC has been registered against the 4 applicant and his family members, record reveals that non- applicant has sufficient reason to live separate from the applicant and finding recorded by the family Court while passing the impugned order regarding occupation(priest work) of the applicant- husband, further considering that father of the applicant is also having some agricultural land, this Court is of the considered view that the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500/- per month is a very meager 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/-