1 2025:CGHC:57315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 694 of 2022 Gajanand Kurre S/o Late Shivnarayan Aged About 28 Years R/o Mouharpara, Paradol, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Mrigvasini Kurre W/o Gajanand Kurre Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Ujiyarpur, Police Station Podi, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 2. Arushi Kurre D/o Gajanand Kurre Aged About 1 Year (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Mrigvasini W/o Gajanand Kurre, R/o Village Ujiyarpur, Police Station Podi, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate.. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondents to press this present revision petition when the matter is called out for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, 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, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and further be pleased to set-aside the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:19:12 +0530 2 order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15/2021, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 24.08.2018 at Village Ujiyarpur according to Hindu rituals. The respondent No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 昀椀led before the learned Family Court by respondent No. 1, it was alleged that subsequent to the marriage, the behaviour of the applicant towards her became rude, and that she was subjected to cruelty and mental harassment. It was further alleged that when respondent No. 1 was pregnant, the applicant forced her to leave the matrimonial home, stating that she was a burden on him and therefore she should return to her parental home. Due to repeated harassment, she was compelled to lodge a report at the Police Station regarding the rude behaviour and physical harassment, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The applicant 昀椀led a written statement before the learned Family Court denying the facts and allegations made by respondent No. 1 (his wife), and stated that he took full responsibility for her during her pregnancy. He further stated that his wife often used to visit her parental home and deliberately refused to have conjugal relations with him. It was also his case that his mother is a paralyzed woman, and his wife refuses to live with him and refuses to take care of his ailing mother. 6. The wife of the applicant is a working woman employed as a Ward Police. It was further stated that the applicant is a poor man, earning Rs. 200/- per day as a daily wager under MGNREGA. Therefore, in the absence of any reliable source of income, he is unable to pay maintenance to his wife. 3 7. The learned Family Court, after hearing the parties, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No. 1 deliberately and wilfully left the matrimonial home, and therefore she is not entitled to any maintenance. He submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that respondent No. 1 is a working woman earning her livelihood as a Mahila Ward Police. Learned Family Court did not consider that the applicant’s mother is su昀昀ering from paralysis, and the applicant is duty-bound to take care of her; hence, his 昀椀nancial condition does not permit him to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is excessive. 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