1 2025:CGHC:57323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1177 of 2022 Sanjay Kumar Joshi S/o Late Fagwaram Joshi, Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 28 Transport Road Satnami Mohlla, Behind The Banchhor Electronics, Chhawni Bhilai Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Hemlata Joshi W/o Sanjay Kumar Joshi Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 28 Transport Road Satnami Mohlla, Behind The Banchhor Electronics, Chhawni Bhilai Police Station Jamul Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Ward No. 15 Satnami Mohalla, Near Thakre Kirana Shop, Sikola Basti Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, 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. Rohitashva Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:11 +0530 2 prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2022, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 185/2021, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the applicant. As per the pleadings made by the respondent, she solemnized her marriage with the applicant 10 years ago in District Durg according to Hindu rites and rituals, and the couple has no children. The respondent further pleaded that after the marriage, the applicant used to beat her and mentally and physically torture her over trivial issues. She also alleged that the applicant consumed alcohol and kept another woman without obtaining a divorce from the respondent. The respondent pleaded that the applicant is working as a driver and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month, and that he also possesses agricultural land. Therefore, he is competent to maintain the respondent, whereas she is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, she claimed monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- from the applicant. 5. The applicant entered appearance before the learned Family Court, submitted his reply, and pleaded that the respondent always doubted him whenever he spoke to anyone and used abusive language towards him. He further submitted that he is a driver earning only Rs. 3,500/- per month and does not possess any land. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the respondent’s application. 3 6. The learned Family Court declared the applicant ex parte on 24.05.2022, due to which he did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent’s witnesses. 7. Even after remand of the matter by this Hon’ble Court, the learned Family Court considered only the statement of the respondent and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month in her favour. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that by the impugned order, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month without there being any material or supporting witness. He submits that the learned Family Court erred in computing the maintenance amount, particularly when there was no material evidence on record to establish the marriage. Learned Family Court ought to have appreciated that the applicant was proceeded ex parte and never got an opportunity to cross- examine the respondent’s witnesses. He further submits that the learned Family Court ignored the fact that the respondent did not produce any evidence regarding the applicant’s income, nor did she produce any document showing that the applicant owned a car or possessed agricultural land. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant was ex parte before the Court and was deprived of his right to cross-examine the witnesses. 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 respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 4 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. 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