1 2025:CGHC:57332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1167 of 2022 Sudhanshu Tripathi S/o Rajkishore Tripathi Aged About 35 Years R/o - House No. 30, River Veu, Colony Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Rachna Tripathi W/o Sudhanshu Tripathi Aged About 35 Years R/o M.I.G. 898 Hudko Colony, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Durg (C.G.) may kindly be set-aside in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Family Court, Durg, asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that their marriage was solemnized about four years ago according to Hindu rites. She alleged that after a few years of marriage, the applicant subjected her to cruelty and compelled her to leave the matrimonial home, and that since 08.12.2018 she has been residing with her mother at her parental house. Claiming that she has no independent source of income and that the applicant, who allegedly earns about Rs.45,000/- per month, had neglected and refused to maintain her, she sought monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-. The applicant, in his reply, denied all allegations and submitted that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient cause and refused to return despite his efforts, and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, Durg, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, is bad, illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the respondent has been residing separately at her parental home for more than five years without any sufÏcient cause, 3 and thus is not entitled to claim maintenance. It is further submitted that the applicant, who had been employed in a delivery company after studying computer science, lost his job during the COVID-19 pandemic and has remained unemployed since May 2021, and that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate these facts as well as the applicant’s reply. Counsel argues that the respondent’s allegation regarding the applicant’s income of Rs.45,000/- per month is unsupported by any documentary evidence, yet the Court erroneously relied upon such unsubstantiated assertions while awarding maintenance. It is further urged that the cause shown by the respondent for seeking maintenance is inconsistent and unreliable, and the Court below committed grave error in assessing the means of the applicant and determining the quantum of maintenance on incorrect presumptions, making the findings perverse and unsustainable in law; accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Durg, rightly concluded that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and that she has been residing at her parental home since 08.12.2018 after being subjected to ill-treatment and neglect. The Court correctly observed that the respondent has no independent source of income, that the applicant failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that she left his company without sufÏcient cause, and that the statutory 4 obligation to maintain his wife had been wilfully neglected. The Family Court further appreciated that although the respondent claimed the applicant earns approximately Rs.45,000/- per month, the applicant did not place any reliable material to rebut his earning capacity or to establish his alleged unemployment. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court, after a fair evaluation of the evidence and in accordance with the principles governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., rightly exercised its discretion in partly allowing the application and directing the applicant to pay a reasonable sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards the respondent’s maintenance. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan