1 2025:CGHC:52332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 925 of 2021 Rampukar Singh S/o Devnandan Singh Aged About 62 Years Occupation Transport And Bus Owner, R/o Village Kodatarai, Police Station Jutmill, Tahsil Pusaur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ahilya Devi W/o Rampukar Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kodatarai, Police Station Jutmill, Tahsil Pusaur, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Roop R Naik, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. F- 154/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.10.28 14:10:32 +0530 2 the respondent/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized about 45–46 years ago as per Hindu rites and rituals. They have two sons and one daughter, all of whom are married. The present applicant is residing with his younger son, namely Sunil, while the respondent is residing with her elder son, namely Arun Singh. On 18.10.2019, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, seeking maintenance. In the said application, the respondent exaggerated the income of the applicant and further alleged that the applicant was living separately with another woman, namely Rukni Yadav, with whom he was allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship. The respondent prayed for maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The respondent has stated that the applicant owns twelve acres of agricultural land, eight buses, one four-wheeler, one tractor, and three to four fourteen-wheeler “Dala Body” trucks, and that he earns Rs. 1–2 lakh per day. The applicant denied the allegations made in the application filed by the respondent, stating that he is a respectable person and, owing to his fair conduct, had been elected twice as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kodatarai and is presently serving as Up-Sarpanch of the same village. It is submitted that the application has been filed by the respondent at the instigation of her elder son with an intention to humiliate the applicant and to assassinate the character of a woman by making false allegations of an illicit relationship. The applicant resides with his younger son and 3 daughter-in-law, Alka Singh, while the respondent also resides on the first floor of the same house. The elder son of the applicant, namely Arun Singh, resides in a separate house located about 200 meters away from the house of the applicant and the respondent. The applicant bears all the expenses of the respondent and takes care of all her needs. The applicant has separated from his elder son due to his misconduct and has already given him a house, agricultural land, a hotel, and cash. Despite this, the elder son forcefully began constructing a house on the applicant’s land, which was subsequently stopped by the Tahsildar, Pusaur. Arun Singh has also assaulted the applicant several times over property disputes. A complaint regarding the said assaults was lodged at Jutmill Police Station, registered as FIR No. 881/2019. The applicant has also stated in his written statement that he has already distributed his property, agricultural land, and cash equally between his two sons, and that he now possesses only three acres of agricultural land. The income derived therefrom is used by him to maintain himself and his wife (the respondent). The learned Family Court, after framing issues and considering the evidence and materials on record, passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2021, directing the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife as maintenance. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.10.2021, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. F 154/2019 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.), is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The learned 4 Family Court has wrongly considered the grievances of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay maintenance, which is contrary to the evidence available on record. As per the evidence and documents on record, it is clearly shown that the respondent has no sufficient reason to reside separately. The learned Family Court has erroneously assessed the income of the applicant, and the applicant is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance amount as directed by the learned Trial Court. 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that it has been stated by the applicant/husband that he has given portions of his owned agricultural land to his sons through partition. During his cross-examination, he admitted that three acres of land are still under his ownership and that he sells about 55–56 quintals of paddy every year. The applicant has further stated in his chief examination that he earns approximately Rs.5,000 per month from running a roadside eatery (dhaba). From these facts, it can be inferred that the applicant earns a sufficient income from agriculture and other sources. It is also evident from the evidence on record that the applicant has been elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 5 and is presently serving as the Up-Sarpanch. Thus, from the evidence brought on record, it is established that the respondent is the wife of the applicant, and that the applicant has made no arrangement for her maintenance. The evidence further clearly shows that the respondent is not capable of maintaining herself, whereas the applicant, being her husband, is legally bound and financially capable of maintaining her. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti