1 2025:CGHC:57314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 818 of 2022 Khageshwar Kashyap S/o Bahoran Kashyap, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nawagarh P.S. Nawagarh Gairhapara Tahsil Nawagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Chitrarekha Kashyap W/o Khageshwar Kashyap, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Mudapar, P.S. Kusmunda, Tahsil Hardibazar, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Link Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.40/2021, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the 2 application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, their marriage having taken place on 16.05.2011 at Village Mudpar, Tahsil Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.), and two male children, Ayush and Dhruv, were born out of the wedlock. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Katghora, alleging that after a few years of marriage the applicant started subjecting her to cruelty by demanding money from her parents, doubting the paternity of the children, suspecting her character, and eventually driving her out of the matrimonial home on 04.10.2019. Having taken shelter at her parental house, she lodged a complaint on 13.10.2019 at Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa, where the criminal case is presently pending before the Court of JMFC, Nawagarh. She further claimed that she is dependent on her parents and has no source of income, and therefore sought maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month. The applicant contested the application, denying all allegations and asserting that the respondent is living separately by her own will as she is allegedly involved in an adulterous relationship with one Adey Kumar Sarthi, due to which she was caught and taken away by her father after a Panchayat acknowledged the alleged illicit relationship. The applicant further 3 claimed that the respondent is earning from a cloth shop while he himself is unemployed and works as a daily wager to maintain the children. Despite this, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent, which the applicant challenges as contrary to law. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Katghora (Link Court), is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The Court erred in concluding that the respondent was wrongfully externed by the applicant and thereby held her entitled to maintenance without properly appreciating the material on record. He further submits that the Family Court further committed an error in ignoring the concrete evidence indicating the respondent’s illicit relationship with another man and the acknowledgment of this fact in the Panchayat. Despite such material, the Court unjustifiably held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., contrary to the legal provisions that disentitle a wife living in adultery. He also submits that the learned Court also erred in determining the quantum of maintenance, fixing an excessive amount without considering the applicant’s actual income or financial condition. The order dated 29.06.2022 suffers from legal infirmities and overlooks the statutory grounds under Section 125 Cr.P.C., making it improper and liable to be set-aside. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing the evidence of the respondent-wife and her witnesses, it stands proved that she was subjected to cruelty, assault, abuse, and financial demands by the applicant-husband, and that the applicant kept another woman during the subsistence of marriage, compelling the respondent to live separately for just and reasonable cause. The Court further observed that the respondent has no stable income and is unable to maintain herself, while the applicant is earning through labour work and agriculture and has sufficient means to provide maintenance. Therefore, Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 5 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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 Akhil