1 2025:CGHC:57320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1204 of 2022 Chandra Prakash Aahire S/o Mahetter Aahire Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Atargawa, Post Gadamod P.S. Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sarita Bai Aahire W/o Chandra Prakash Aahire Aged About 30 Years D/o Shri Banshilal Lahre, R/o Village Amne, Tahsil Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate.. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order as to quash the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:11 +0530 2 impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 24 of 2019 by learned Judge Family Court Bilaspur (C.G.) by allowing this application, in the ends of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent 7led an application for grant of maintenance with the averment that she is the wife of the applicant. Their marriage took place on 22.04.2007, and from that day onwards, both were living a happy married life. From their wedlock, they have two children, namely, daughter Ku. Anjali and son Devprakash. It is alleged that the applicant and the respondent were residing at the Industrial Area, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). It was contended that while residing at Bhopal, the applicant started quarrelling with the respondent for several years. It was further alleged that the applicant started subjecting the respondent to torture without any reason and also began to harass her on account of dowry demands. It was also contended that the parents and family members of the applicant also started harassing therespondent. It was further alleged that while residing at Village Attargawa, Post Gadamore, P.S. Nawagarh, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.), the respondent used to go to her parental home without any reasonable cause. The applicant did not contact the respondent for 4–5 days, and when he went to meet her and bring her back, he again quarrelled with her and drove her out of the house, stating that unless a separate house and a vehicle were provided, she would not be allowed to reside with the applicant. The actual fact is that the respondent’s father, Banshilal, was residing at Bhopal and was working as a labourer. The applicant was also working along with Banshilal as a labourer. Due to their acquaintance, the father of the respondent proposed the marriage between the applicant and the respondent, and their ring ceremony 3 (Mangni) took place at Bhopal itself. After marriage, the revisionist resided with the respondent at Bhopal where her parents, Banshilal and Minibai, were residing. The parents and family members of the applicant never went to Bhopal for labour work, as all of them were working at their native place, Village Attargawa. Since the respondent was residing near her parental home, she never informed the applicant about any illness, nor was she su?ering from any illness at all. It is also a matter of fact that after marriage, when the respondent was residing at Bhopal, she used to go to Village Amne without informing the applicant or her parents, and when asked about the reason, she used to abuse the applicant. The birth of Ku. Anjali took place on 19.01.2008 at the applicant’s native village, Attargawa. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant never caused any trouble to the respondent and never neglected her needs. Instead, due to her habitual free lifestyle, she frequently went to her parental home. Considering the future of his children, the applicant personally attempted to conciliate her. In the meantime, their second child, daughter Ku. Aarti, was born on 24.04.2009 at Village Attargawa. All the expenses for her treatment and the newly born baby were borne by the applicant. Despite this, the respondent continued to ill-treat the applicant, subjected him to cruelty, and frequently went to her parental home, and whenever questioned, she again behaved cruelly. It is a matter of fact that the applicant never ill-treated her nor ever left the respondent at her parental home. During their marriage, their third child, son Ved Prakash Aahire, was born on 20.07.2011 at Village Attargawa, and their fourth child, Ku. Nidhi Aahire, was also born at the same place. It is humbly submitted that due to her habitual free lifestyle, the respondent left all her children and started residing at her parental home. The applicant has been looking after and bringing up all the children continuously. There has 4 been no change in her behaviour, despite repeated conciliatory e?orts made by the elders of the society. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and awarded Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, as mentioned above, is illegal, improper, against the principles of natural justice, and deserves to be set aside in its entirety. He submits that the 7ndings recorded by the Family Court while passing the impugned order are not based on the evidence available on record and su?er from illegality, perversity, and a biased approach. Hence, the order allowing the application for maintenance is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The 7ndings of fact and the conclusions drawn by the court below itself show that there were contradictions between the application of the respondent and the evidence adduced by the respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the court below is unreasonable and unacceptable, being inconsistent with the evidence on record. He also submits that there is no suDcient evidence on record to establish that the respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty by the applicant in any manner, as alleged. Hence, the 7ndings and conclusions drawn by the Family Court are perverse. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. 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 on higher side warranting interference by 5 this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek