1 2025:CGHC:47294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 534 of 2020 Manoj Baghel S/o Lakhmu Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Talnar, Tahsil / Police Station Chhindgarh, District Sukma Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Gouri Baghel W/o Manoj Baghel Aged About 26 Years Caste Dhurva, R/o Village Kalepal, Tehsil Tokapal, Police Station Parpa, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Navin Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been 5led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 03.07.2017 at Village Talnar. After the marriage, as per rituals, the respondent went to her parental home, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.16 18:21:24 +0530 2 and the applicant also returned, stating that he would come back after some time to take the respondent along with him. In the meantime, the respondent/applicant fell ill, due to which she could not return to her matrimonial home. However, even after the lapse of one and a half months, the applicant did not come to take her back. Consequently, the parents of the respondent took her to the house of the applicant, but soon after they left, the applicant sent her back by bus. Before sending her, the applicant quarreled with her, threw her out of the house, and has not taken her back to the matrimonial home till date. The respondent/applicant has been waiting for the applicant to take her back, but he has neither come nor made any e=ort to bring his wife home. Even the parents of the respondent/applicant made several attempts to reconcile the matter between the applicant and the respondent, but their e=orts remained unsuccessful. Since then, the respondent/applicant has been residing with her parents. 4. Learned Family Court, after examining the witnesses, recording the evidence, and framing the issues, allowed the maintenance application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has erred both in law and on facts while passing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020. The applicant, while denying the statements made by the respondent, submitted that the applicant and the respondent were well acquainted and in love with each other, but the respondent tried to trap the applicant on account of his simple and loving nature. He further submits that the respondent always harassed the applicant by saying, “You brought me to the forest where there is no electricity”, and thereafter she frequently went to her maternal home without informing the 3 applicant or his family members. On refusal, she used to quarrel with the applicant. He also submits that the respondent from the very beginning, never intended to reside with the applicant and his family members, as she always wanted to live in her own parental house. The applicant by working as a porter and daily wage labourer, earns his livelihood and maintains his family members. It is pertinent to mention here that he belongs to a core Naxalite-a=ected area, where apart from his porter and labour work, he has no other means of income. He submits that the respondent has deserted the applicant by harassing him and repeatedly stating that she does not want to live in that forest and in such an adverse atmosphere. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek