1 2025:CGHC:29172 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 169 of 2020 M. Shriniwas S/o M. Baikunth Aged About 30 Years R/o Dasari Street Jaipur, M.G. Road, Near S. Murlis House, Jaipur Town, District Koraput (Orissa) Wrongly Mentioned As Chhattisgarh, District : Koraput, Orissa. ... Applicant versus Smt. M. Mansa W/o M. Shriniwas Aged About 24 Years R/o M. Shriniwas D/o S. Kashi Kumharpara, Madiya Chowk, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar (Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and set-aside the order dated 30.11.2019 (Annexure A/1), in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the non-applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that she was married to the applicant/husband on 11.02.2016 as per Hindu customs at Jagdalpur. She alleged that the applicant subjected her to cruelty, denied basic household needs, and eventually abandoned her six months prior, forcing her to live at her parental home. She also filed a complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She claimed the applicant was working as a medical representative earning Rs. 20,000/- per month while she had no independent income, and sought Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. In reply, the applicant denied the allegations, stating that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home after a dispute during Makar Sankranti and took her ornaments and Rs. 50,000/- with her. He claimed to earn only Rs. 3,000/- per month as a salesman in Shri Sai Ganesh Enterprises, Jaipur (Odisha), and argued she was not entitled to maintenance. Both parties led evidence before the Family Court, where the applicant and his witness Pawan Kumar, and the non- applicant were examined. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, granted Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance to the non- applicant/wife by order dated 30.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed a legal error by failing to consider 3 that the applicant/husband never refused to maintain the non- applicant/wife, and that she is voluntarily residing at her parental home without any sufficient cause. The court further erred in overlooking the applicant’s limited income of only Rs. 3,500/- per month, and yet arbitrarily awarded Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance, which is excessive and unsustainable. Additionally, the court committed illegality by rejecting the applicant’s application dated 04.10.2019 seeking permission to summon the official from C.G. Pathya Pustak Nigam to prove the earning capacity of the non- applicant/wife, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to establish his case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bastar Place, District- Jagdalpur, (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 rightly considered the facts and evidence presented by both parties and passed a just and reasoned order dated 30.11.2019, granting Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant/wife. The Court took into account the allegations of cruelty, desertion, and financial hardship faced by the wife, who was compelled to reside at her parental home due to the conduct of the applicant/husband. Despite the applicant’s denial 4 and claims of low income, the Court found that he had failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to prove that the wife was voluntarily living apart or that she had an independent source of income. The Court also considered the fact that a complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act had been filed by the wife, reflecting the seriousness of the matrimonial discord. Thus, the Family Court, after due appreciation of the material on record, rightly exercised its discretion in awarding maintenance to ensure the basic sustenance and dignity of the wife. 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 record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan