1 2025:CGHC:59453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1483 of 2025 Shyamsundar Surywanshi S/o Samaaru Aged About 27 Years Occupation (Constable Posted At Balrampur Ramanujganj), R/o Village Jwali, Tehsil Katghora, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... applicant(s) versus Smt. Soniya Surywanshi W/o Shyam Sundar Surywanshi Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Khaiyapara, Ratanpur, Tehsil Kota, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For applicant(s) : Ms. Komal Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge of Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.327/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent (wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking maintenance from the applicant (husband). The parties were married on 05.06.2015 as per Hindu customs at Village Jawali, Tehsil Katghora, District Korba. Two daughters were born from the marriage Kumari Khushi (5 years) and Kumari Reya (3 years) who are currently residing with the applicant. The relationship between the parties was initially cordial, but for the last two years, the applicant allegedly became addicted to liquor and started abusing and physically assaulting the respondent. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law also allegedly harassed and beat her. Due to continuous cruelty, she lodged a report on 02.05.2022 at Police Station Bankimongra. After a settlement, she returned, but on 07.10.2022 and 08.10.2022, she was again physically assaulted and expelled from her matrimonial home. Since then, she has been living with her parents, while her two minor daughters have been kept away from her by the applicant. Attempts at reconciliation through elders failed. The respondent is unemployed and fully dependent on the applicant for her maintenance. The applicant is financially sound, he works as a peon in a Government Primary School at Village Jawali and owns approximately 6 acres of agricultural land and a 1-acre poultry 3 farm, earning around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The respondent filed an application seeking Rs.26,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the respondent had illicit relations, that a “social divorce” had taken place, and that he had remarried. The Family Court rejected these defences and held that the respondent was living separately for valid reasons. However, the Court awarded only Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance by order dated 10.10.2025. Aggrieved by the maintenance amount, the respondent has filed the present Criminal Revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and awarded an unjustifiably meagre maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month, which is wholly insufficient to meet even the basic needs of the applicant. Despite recording a clear finding that the applicant was subjected to cruelty and was living separately for valid reasons, the Court did not award a realistic amount in proportion to the respondent’s financial status. He further submits that the learned Court overlooked the respondent’s substantial earning capacity, which includes a government job as a peon and considerable income from agricultural land and a poultry farm, totalling nearly Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Instead of drawing an adverse inference for the respondent’s failure to disclose his true income or produce relevant documents, the Court erroneously shifted the burden onto the applicant, contrary to Section 106 of 4 the Evidence Act and settled principles governing Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the impugned order reflects non- application of judicial mind, as it ignores essential factors such as cost of living, inflation, and the purpose of maintenance provisions, which aim to prevent destitution. The order dated 10.10.2025 is arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to settled law, and therefore deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance observing that the allegations made by the applicant against the respondent are not reliable, as his own statements were contradicted during cross-examination. The applicant has also admitted to having contracted a second marriage, which establishes that the respondent is living separately for valid and justified reasons. Although the respondent could not produce concrete proof regarding the applicant’s exact income, it is evident that the applicant has the responsibility of maintaining his two daughters as well as the children from his second marriage. Considering these circumstances, the Family Court’s granted 5 maintenance to the respondent as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil