1 2025:CGHC:45855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 160 of 2020 Krishna Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Dinbandhu Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Railway Station Road, Near Shani Mandir, Beside Canal Korba, Police Station, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Radha Pandey W/o Krishna Kumar Pandey Aged About 35 Years R/o Railway Station Road, Near Shani Mandir, Korba, Present Address - Gokul Ganj, Sitamani, Korba, Police Station - Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.09.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the judgment dated 15/01/2020 so far as it relates to the awarding of maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non applicant in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the non-applicant against the applicant for obtaining the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month with the intend that it is stated the applicant and non-applicant were married on 24/04/2003 at Korba with Hindu custom. After marriage the applicant and non applicant both were living happily life. After marriage, applicant and non- applicant both were residing in Railway Colony Korba. Out of their wedlock, baby was born on 11/06/2014 thereafter the non-applicant went her parental house. After passing of some days the brother of non-applicant came to the house of in-laws of non applicant to left her sister. It is respectfully submitted that the non applicant in a second time she blessing second baby daughter in 14/01/2009 the first baby was delivered by operation. In that period the non applicant lodged a false report before Family Consultant Center and thereafter she made a report before Sakhi Van Center with regard to the applicant and family member of in-laws torturing and misbehaving with the non applicant. It is further submitted that during staying in the house of maternal house she is doing the work as Receptionist in Little Step School at Mudapar in a private School. Again the non-applicant returned back at the non parental house with her brother. The applicant made complaint in Sakhi Center with regard to Domestic Violence Act and presently the matter is under consideration before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. The non-applicant do not like the applicant/husband and she 3 herself residing separately and filed an application for grant of maintenance. 3. The applicant has filed his reply and categorically denied the averments made by the non-applicant and specifically pleaded that the marriage between he and non-applicant. Thereafter she started living in her paternal house and doing the private job in Mudapar Private Little school and she is earning lady and qualified lady. The applicant has specifically raised that in between the quarrel has been started and non-applicant has residing separately. The non- applicant has also lodged a false report with regard to torturing and misbehaving upon the applicant and family member of in-laws. 4. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court concerned partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the non- applicant and further bear Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant is having no source of income to pay such amount which has been awarded. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the non applicant was continuously living in adultery and therefore according to Section 125 of the code of criminal procedure she is not entitled to any maintenance amount from the applicant. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the non- applicant is living separately without sufficient cause therefore also she is not entitled to maintenance. He further submits that there is 4 ample evidence on record to show that the non-applicant has herself left the house of the applicant without being any sufficient cause for living separately. The maintenance amount awarded to the non-applicant is too much and the applicant is not able to pay the same as he is having no source of income. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Family Court sought maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the applicant. Upon due appreciation of the facts, evidence, and overall circumstances, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application and directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. The Court, while considering the social status of the parties, their earning capacity, and number of dependents, found Rs. 2,000/- per month to be just and proper, which cannot be said to be excessive. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court, 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. 5 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal