1 2025:CGHC:25092 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 223 of 2018 Kashiram S/o Hazari Aged About 56 Years R/o Chanwaridand, P.S. and Tehsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Meera Bai W/o Kashiram Aged About 53 Years Caste Banjara, R/o Chanwaridand, P. S. And Tehsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of non-applicant when the case is called out of hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.18 19:05:38 +0530 2 kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court, Manendragarh District Koriya (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondent, Smt. Meera Bai, alleging that she is the wife of the applicant and that their marriage was solemnized about 35 years ago. Out of their wedlock, two sons were born, namely, Badri Prasad, aged 30 years, and Narbad Prasad, aged 28 years. It was further alleged that for the past three years, the applicant had been ill-treating the respondent, beating her after consuming alcohol, and had failed to maintain her. She also claimed that the applicant works as a mason and earns Rs. 3–4 lakhs per annum. On these grounds, she sought maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and filed a written statement denying the contentions raised by the respondent. He stated that the respondent had left him without any justifiable reason and was residing with their children, who were maintaining her. It was further submitted that they are all residing in a house constructed by the applicant and that she had deserted him without sufficient cause about seven years ago. He also pleaded that he earns only Rs. 1,500/- per month and, being an elderly person, is unable to maintain even himself. Therefore, the non-applicant is not entitled to any maintenance, and her application should be dismissed. 3 5. The application filed by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2017, and maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month was granted to the respondent with effect from December 2017. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court ought to have considered that the applicant was always ready and willing to live with the respondent, but it is the respondent (wife) who started living separately without any valid reason or sufficient cause. The applicant is still willing to reside with her. He also submits that the learned trial Court committed a grave error by overlooking the fact that the respondent is living with her children in the house built by the applicant and is capable of maintaining herself. The respondent is living separately without sufficient cause or reason and, of her own will, does not wish to reside with the applicant. He further submits that the applicant most respectfully submits that the respondent is earning a livelihood for herself and her family and is residing in the applicant’s house along with her children, who are also earning members. Therefore, the applicant is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent. The applicant most respectfully submits that he earns only Rs. 1,500/- per month, as he works as a mason, and hence, the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive and on the higher side. For the reasons stated above, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 4 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek