1 2025:CGHC:56599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 635 of 2022 Shekhardas S/o Juguldas, Aged About 25 Years Caste Panika, Village Naraibodh, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vijeta Mahant S/o Shekhardas Mahant, Aged About 23 Years Caste R/o. Karra, Police Station Katghora, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vijay Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vijay Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside/reduce the impugned order dated 20-05-2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 15.02.2017 according to Hindu rituals, and after some time their relationship became strained. The respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, alleging that on 07.04.2017 she was left at her parental home by her father-in-law with the assurance that she would be taken back after examinations, but no one returned to bring her. She further alleged that the applicant’s family doubted her character and refused to keep her in the matrimonial home, and that the applicant was attempting to solemnize a second marriage with one Asha Mahant. She claimed that the applicant owns agricultural land, earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000 per annum, possesses a J.C.B. machine, and earns about Rs. 20,000 per month, therefore she sought maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month. The applicant/husband filed his reply denying all allegations and asserted that on 18.04.2017 the respondent left the matrimonial home with one Durgesh Das, with whom she allegedly had illicit relations even prior to marriage, and that this fact was concealed by her family. After hearing both parties, the learned trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) is illegal, perverse, and suffers from serious procedural irregularities, and therefore deserves to be set aside or the maintenance amount 3 reduced. It is further submitted that on 18.04.2017, the respondent/wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and gone with another boy, namely Durgesh Das, due to which her grandfather lodged a report at Police Station Darri. It is contended that the respondent stayed with the said person for about nine months, and the applicant has consistently maintained that she had illicit relations with Durgesh Das even prior to the marriage, which fact was deliberately concealed by her family members at the time of marriage, thereby amounting to fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, the applicant submits that he cannot be made liable to pay maintenance in such circumstances and the order passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District- Korba, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. The Family Court took into account that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.02.2017 and that the respondent/wife was left at her parental home on 07.04.2017, whereafter she was not taken back to the matrimonial house despite assurances. The allegations made by the wife regarding her ill-treatment, doubt cast upon her character, and the 4 applicant’s alleged attempt to contract a second marriage were also duly considered. The Family Court further examined the financial capacity of the applicant, including his agricultural income and possession of a J.C.B. machine, as stated by the wife. On the other hand, the defence raised by the applicant, that the respondent had illicit relations with one Durgesh Das prior to and after marriage, was not substantiated with credible evidence. In these circumstances, the Family Court, after assessing the requirement of the wife and the earning capacity of the husband, has correctly exercised its jurisdiction in awarding a reasonable sum of Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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