1 2025:CGHC:52981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1306 of 2025 Kartikram Rathore S/o Shravan Rathore Aged About 53 Years Occupation- Government Service (Canal Department), R/o Village Sewani (Champa), Police Station And Tehsil- Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Laxmin Bai Rathore W/o Kartikram Rathore Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sewani (Champa), Police Station And Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Village Sakrelikala (Baradwar), Police Station And Tehsil Baradwar, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: 1. “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the Court’s below, in the interest of justice, KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Circuit Family Court, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Claim Case No. 05/2024, in the interest of justice, 3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court concerned seeking monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- from the applicant. It is an admitted fact in the case that the marriage between the applicant and the non- applicant was solemnized on 09.03.2023 at Shiv Temple, Village Turi, according to Hindu rites and customs. The non-applicant/wife has stated that after her marriage with the applicant/husband, she started residing with him at Village Sewani, Tehsil Champa. The applicant/husband’s first wife and the non-applicant/wife’s first husband had both passed away prior to their marriage. The applicant/husband has two sons, namely Radheshyam and Pitambar, from his first wife, whereas the non-applicant/wife has a daughter, Urvi, from her first husband, who resides with her. The non-applicant/wife further alleged that after the marriage, the applicant/husband used to assault and threaten her. He allegedly compelled her to consume “Pearl” and “Choice” birth control pills with iron. During her pregnancy, he allegedly forced her to take 3 medicines which caused a miscarriage. On 13.08.2023, the applicant/husband is said to have assaulted her under the influence of alcohol, causing injuries. On 14.08.2023, he allegedly threatened to kill her and left her at her parental home situated at Village Sakreli. Thereafter, on 21.12.2023, when the non-applicant/wife lodged a complaint against the applicant/husband at Police Station Baradwar, she was advised to seek remedy before the Court, and accordingly, a report was registered as Crime No. 157/2023. The non-applicant/wife is presently residing at her parental home and has no source of income. It is further submitted that the applicant/husband is employed in the Canal Department of the Government and draws a monthly salary of ₹28,000/-. He also earns approximately ₹80,000/- annually from two acres of agricultural land situated at Village Sewani and owns a residential house at the same place. Hence, the non-applicant/wife prayed that she be awarded monthly maintenance of ₹15,000/- from the applicant/husband. 4. In his written reply, the applicant/husband admitted the fact of marriage and acknowledged the non-applicant/wife as his legally wedded wife. Their marriage was solemnized at Shiv Temple, Village Turi, as per Hindu customs, in the presence of relatives from both sides. He confirmed that both his former wife and the non-applicant’s former husband had expired. He has two sons from his first wife, and the non-applicant has one daughter from her first husband. However, the applicant/husband contended that since 14.08.2023, the non- applicant/wife has been residing at her parental home at Village Sakreli, Baradwar, of her own free will. He submitted that the 4 complaint lodged by the non-applicant/wife on 21.12.2023 is false and that he too has filed a complaint against her at Police Station Champa. He denied the allegations of assault or misbehavior under the influence of alcohol. The applicant/husband further alleged that on 12.03.2024, the non-applicant/wife attempted to mix poison in his food and he possesses a video recording of the said incident. He stated that the non-applicant/wife does not wish to live with him because she fears her conduct may be exposed. Nonetheless, he expressed his willingness to forgive her and take her back. He also alleged that the non-applicant/wife took away gold ornaments and cash and left for her parental home without his consent or knowledge. The applicant/husband further stated that he earns about ₹20,000/- annually from paddy cultivation, owns a house at Village Sewani (Champa), and is suffering from ill health, spending nearly half of his salary on medicines. Hence, he prayed that the application filed by the non-applicant/wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Circuit Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), vide order dated 17.06.2025 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 05/2024, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant/husband to pay a sum of ₹4,500/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, and therefore, liable to be set aside. It is submitted 5 that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the non- applicant has been residing separately at her parental home since 14.08.2023 of her own free will and without any sufÏcient cause, and she herself admitted that she is not willing to live with the applicant. Hence, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court erred in believing the unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty and assault without any proof, as the non-applicant failed to produce any medical record, witness, or FIR to support her claims. The finding of cruelty is thus without evidence and contrary to law. The non-applicant’s statements are also self-contradictory and unreliable, as she claimed to have been living separately since 14.08.2023, yet referred to an alleged incident dated 12.03.2024 involving the applicant, which could not have occurred if she was not residing with him. These inconsistencies clearly demonstrate that her version is false and fabricated. The learned Family Court also ignored the applicant’s limited income and health condition, he earns only ₹26,000/- per month, suffers from illness, and spends nearly half of his income on medicines while bearing responsibility for his two sons from his first marriage. Therefore, fixing ₹4,500/- per month as maintenance is excessive and unjust. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is not without means to maintain herself, as she possesses all the gold ornaments given by the applicant, is healthy, and has made no effort to earn or support herself. The applicant has always been ready and willing to keep and maintain the non-applicant at his residence, but she has refused to live with him without any valid reason. Therefore, 6 the learned Family Court has passed the maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted maintenance of Rs.4500/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance from the date of filing of the application, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.4500/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. 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 Kunal