1 2025:CGHC:45694 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 200 of 2024 Pemendra Kewat S/o Santram Kewat Aged About 32 Years R/o Gopalpur, Police Station And Tehsil Darri, District, Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Gayatri Kewat W/o Pemendra Kewat Aged About 30 Years R/o Janakpur, (Rayahimudi), Police Station & Tehsil Darri, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and impugned order dated order dated 30/01/2024, passed in Cr. M.J.C. No. 20/2023, passed by Judge, Family Court (Camp court), Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, passed in case of "Gayatri Kewat us Mrs. Pemendra Kewat", KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be modified and sufficiently enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Kathgora, seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the applicant/husband. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.03.2021 at Village Udayband, District Janjgir Champa, as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged by the respondent that she stayed at her matrimonial home for about 3-4 months, during which she discovered the applicant’s habits of drinking and smoking intoxicating substances. She further alleged that the applicant and his family members harassed her mentally and physically for dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a two-wheeler, and also accused her of practicing black magic. She claimed that on 14.05.2021, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial house and has since been residing with her parents. The respondent further stated that the applicant is employed at a plant earning Rs.20,000/- per month and his family owns one acre of ancestral land, thus claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant appeared before the Family Court and denied all allegations, contending that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home without any just cause and was pressuring him to live separately from his parents. He asserted that the respondent stayed only for one month after marriage and subsequently filed multiple cases against him and his family, causing mental and physical harassment. 3 3. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of filing of application along with Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the material available on record. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has committed a gross illegality in granting maintenance to the respondent/wife despite having recorded a finding that there was no documentary evidence to establish the actual income of the applicant. On one hand, the Court held that the respondent had failed to prove the income of the applicant, yet on the other hand, it presumed that the applicant is a person with sufficient means, which is wholly contradictory, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the applicant is presently unemployed, has no stable source of income, and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged and dependent parents. In such circumstances, it is extremely difficult for him to provide maintenance to the respondent. It is a settled principle of law that a wife is entitled to claim maintenance only when she is residing separately for just and sufficient cause. However, in the present case, the respondent/wife, of her own volition and without any cogent or substantial reason, deserted the matrimonial home and has been residing with her parents ever since. The applicant made 4 genuine and sincere efforts to bring her back, but she outrightly refused to return, thereby clearly demonstrating that she left the matrimonial home without lawful cause. The allegations made by the respondent against the applicant and his family members with respect to dowry demand, harassment, and accusations of black magic are omnibus, vague, and unsupported by any credible evidence, and hence, cannot form the basis for granting maintenance. He further submits that there has been an increasing trend wherein wives, for minor domestic disputes, leave the matrimonial home and misuse the beneficial provisions of law to harass the husband and his family members. The present case is one such example where the respondent has sought to take undue advantage of the legal provisions by making false and baseless allegations. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and legal position and erred in directing the applicant to pay maintenance. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, as the respondent/wife is living separately without any sufficient reason and is therefore not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, has rightly and lawfully exercised its jurisdiction in partly allowing the application under Section 125 of 5 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court took note of the admitted fact that the marriage between the parties was duly solemnized and that the respondent/wife has been living separately from the applicant/husband since 14.05.2021. While the applicant denied the allegations of harassment and dowry demand, he failed to produce any substantive evidence to prove that the respondent was living separately without sufficient cause. It is a well-settled legal principle that a husband has a moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife, particularly when she has no independent source of income. Even though the respondent could not conclusively establish the exact income of the applicant, the Family Court, keeping in view the circumstances, status of the parties, and the young age of the husband, reasonably assessed his earning capacity and awarded a modest maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month along with Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Court, by not granting the full amount claimed by the respondent and instead fixing a just and fair amount, has demonstrated a balanced and judicious approach. Hence, the order passed by the learned Family Court is just, proper, and in accordance with law. 7. Considering the submission 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. 6 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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 Kunal