1 2025:CGHC:40141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1205 of 2023 Niranjan Pandey S/o Late Shri Vikramaditya Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o Boripara, Shikari Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Hemlata Pandey W/o Shri Niranjan Pandey Aged About 42 Years D/o Late Shri Parduman Choubey, R/o Boripara, Shikari Road Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil - Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, C.G., Present Address- Nawapara, Near Nasim Auto Workshop, Surajpur, Police Station And Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Learned Judge Family Court Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 42/2022 (CNR. CGSJ060000812022) and furthermore the application 昀椀led by the respondent (the applicant) under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 may kindly be rejected/dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.03.2022, an application was 昀椀led by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the same was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 42/2022. The case of the respondent, in substance, was that on 27.01.2014, her marriage took place with the applicant non. After marriage, when the respondent went to her matrimonial house for the 昀椀rst time, she stayed there for 11 days and thereafter returned to her maternal house. On 02.05.2014, the respondent again went to her matrimonial house and started residing there, but her husband, mother- in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law started harassing her and stated that they did not want to keep her with them. It was her mother-in-law who slapped her and ousted her from the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the respondent started residing in her maternal house, but the applicant never came to take her back and made no arrangement for her maintenance. The further case of the respondent was that she had 昀椀led an application for grant of divorce but subsequently withdrew it, expressing her wish to reside with her husband. She further stated that on 24.01.2021, she again went to her matrimonial house on the death of 3 her father-in-law, but after the funeral ceremonies, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law again started harassing her, and the applicant did not talk to her and was not ready to keep her with him. Consequently, she again returned to her maternal house and started living a dependent life with her widowed mother. The further case of the respondent was that the applicant was a teacher in a private school and also gave tuition to students, thereby earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. With such facts, she claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. The applicant submitted his reply and opposed the application 昀椀led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating in substance that after marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house and stayed there for only 3–4 days, then returned to her maternal house. Subsequently, when “Donga” happened, she again came to her matrimonial house on 02.05.2014, stayed for 17 days, and again returned to her maternal house. He further submitted that while residing in the matrimonial house, the respondent led a lazy life, did not perform household work, misbehaved with him, and threatened to send him, his mother, and his father to jail. The applicant also stated that due to the cruelty caused by the respondent he was under tension and fell while climbing stairs, after which he was admitted to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur, but the respondent never came to see him. Instead, she voluntarily went to her maternal house, deserting her matrimonial home, and was never harassed by him or his family. He also submitted that the respondent had 昀椀led a divorce petition making false allegations, but when he consented to divorce, she got the case closed by not pressing the application. He further contended that his father had died on 24.01.2019, and therefore, the statement of the respondent that she had gone to her matrimonial house on 24.01.2021 on the death of her father- 4 in-law was false. He asserted that the respondent was never harassed and that she had a higher educational quali昀椀cation than him, gave tuition to children, and earned from running a beauty parlour. On the other hand, he was unemployed, su昀昀ering from several diseases, had no land, and was dependent on his mother, who received a pension of Rs. 9,000– 10,000 per month. 6. The applicant also stated that on 25.02.2022, he sustained a serious injury to his leg in an accident and underwent treatment at the District Hospital due to 昀椀nancial constraints, and he still faced di昀케culty walking. He submitted that the allegations against him were false and that the respondent was living happily in her maternal house. Therefore, he prayed that the application 昀椀led under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be rejected. 7. On 31.01.2023, the learned Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), passed an order in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 42/2022 (CNR. CGSJ060000812022), whereby the application 昀椀led by the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent with e昀昀ect from the date of 昀椀ling of the application, i.e., 24.03.2022. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is illegal and bad in the eyes of law and has been passed without considering the material available on record. He submits that there is no valid reason for the respondent to reside separately, and therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is illegal and perverse. There is no clinching evidence on record to show that the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the 5 applicant. On the contrary, the evidence available on record shows that it was the respondent who caused cruelty to the applicant and his family members, and furthermore, she made false allegations against the applicant, his mother, and his sister. He further submits that the applicant is unemployed and has no source of income. On 25.02.2022, the applicant sustained a serious injury to his leg in an accident and is still facing di昀케culty in walking, whereas the respondent is more educationally quali昀椀ed than the applicant, gives tuition to children, and also earns by running a beauty parlour. Even otherwise, the amount of maintenance granted in favour of the respondent is excessive in nature. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. 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 respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek