1 2025:CGHC:51665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1254 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Ramvriksh Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kanakpur, Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Rubi Gupta W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kanakpur, Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil and District Surajpur (C.G.), At Present R/o Kenapara (Telaikachhar), Police Station Jaynagar, Tahsil and District Surajpur,(C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District - Surajpur, (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No. - 19/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 9,000/- per month to respondent/wife. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.16 18:37:03 +0530 2 2. The facts of the case, inter-alia, are that the respondent was married to the present applicant as per Hindu rites and rituals on 05.02.2007. However, after about five years, in the year 2012, while the respondent was going to Devgarh Mela on a motorcycle being driven by the present applicant, an incident occurred. When they reached near the Kanrai River, a female friend of the applicant met them, abused the respondent, and then forcefully pushed her off the motorcycle. As a result, the respondent sustained a fracture in her right thigh and subsequently became handicapped. Thereafter, the applicant demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent’s parents, which they refused. Due to this, the applicant physically assaulted the respondent, leading her to leave the matrimonial home and start residing at her parental house. A report was lodged at Police Station Jaynagar, but it was later withdrawn based on advice from the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra. However, when the respondent later attempted to return to the applicant’s house, he locked the door and blacklisted her phone number. Since then, she has continued to reside with her parents. The respondent subsequently filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She claimed that the applicant owns a pick-up vehicle and earns approximately Rs. 2,000/- per day, i.e., Rs. 60,000/- per month. She further submitted that she is unable to maintain herself and is, therefore, entitled to maintenance. 3. Per contra, the present applicant, in his reply to the application, contended that the respondent’s behavior was cruel from the beginning of the marriage. She often resided at her parental house 3 and was unwilling to return to the matrimonial home. The allegation regarding his alleged illicit relationship with Pramila Das was denied, stating that she is his foster sister. He further submitted that he is not earning Rs. 2,000/- per day; rather, he earns only Rs. 300/- per day from the pick-up vehicle. He also claimed that he had previously suffered paralysis and is still unfit to drive. Moreover, he denied that the respondent became handicapped due to the alleged incident, stating instead that her right thigh was fractured in an accident while riding a vehicle driven by her brother. Hence, he submitted that the respondent's application is liable to be dismissed. During the trial, the respondent examined herself as Witness No. 1 and one Krishna Gupta as Witness No. 2. The present applicant also examined himself as Witness No. 1 and produced Ajay Gupta as Witness No. 2. However, the learned Family Court, while appreciating the evidence and relying upon certain photographs of the applicant with Pramila Das, erroneously concluded that there existed an illicit relationship between the two. Without properly considering the reply and the evidence produced by the applicant, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order (Annexure A-1), awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the respondent. This amount is excessive and not justified. The findings and reasoning assigned by the learned Family Court are neither just nor proper in the eyes of law. Hence, this revision is being filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record; therefore, the same is 4 liable to be set aside. The respondent has failed to prove that she is living separately for any just and cogent reason. Hence, she is not entitled to any maintenance. However, the learned Family Court has erroneously granted maintenance in her favour. The allegation of an illicit relationship made by the respondent has not been proved in accordance with law. Nevertheless, without any justifiable or cogent reasoning, the learned Family Court has wrongly held that there was an illicit relationship between the applicant and Pramila Das. Therefore, the findings are perverse. The respondent has failed to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. Despite this, the learned Family Court has granted maintenance in her favour without proper basis. He further submits that sufficient evidence has been adduced by the present applicant to show that he is suffering from ill health, is unable to drive the vehicle, and is not earning the amount alleged by the respondent. Yet, the learned Family Court has granted maintenance in favour of the respondent without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The learned Family Court has granted an excessive amount of maintenance, i.e., Rs. 9,000/- per month, in favour of the respondent, which is unjustified. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on 5 record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti