1 2025:CGHC:38904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 173 of 2023 Janak Ram Yadav S/o Laxmiram Aged About 35 Years Caste - Rout, R/o Village Pemla (Harrabahar), Police Station Bagbahar, Tahsil- Patthalgaon, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Amita Yadav W/o Janak Ram Yadav Caste- Rout, R/o Village Pemla (Harrabahar), Police Station- Bagbahar, Tahsil-Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advodate on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Saxena, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.06 10:48:26 +0530 2 Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that she is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and their marriage was solemnized four years prior to the filing of the application. After the marriage, she went to the house of the applicant to perform her matrimonial obligations, where she resided for four years. Thereafter, the applicant began subjecting her to cruelty. It was further contended by the respondent that the applicant doubted her character and eventually ousted her from the matrimonial home. Consequently, she has been living separately. It was also contended that the applicant has sufficient sources of income, yet he has not paid a single penny towards her maintenance. Therefore, she filed the application seeking grant of maintenance. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying the allegations. He submitted that on 07.09.2021, the respondent herself left his house and went with one Munuram Yadav. He further stated that on an earlier occasion, the respondent was caught red-handed in an objectionable condition with Munuram Yadav, for which a social meeting was convened on 08.09.2021 and 09.09.2021. In the said meeting, Munuram Yadav admitted to having a relationship with the respondent. It was further contended by the applicant that the respondent has sufficient means of income and, since she is living in adultery and has voluntarily left the applicant’s house to live with Munuram Yadav, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The applicant, respondent, and Munuram Yadav have given statements in the form of affidavits during the social meeting 3 to the effect that they are free to live separately. Copies of the affidavits of the applicant, respondent, and Munuram Yadav are collectively annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/2. 5. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by its impugned order dated 27.01.2023, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent towards her maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant never ousted the respondent, in fact, the respondent herself left the matrimonial home and has been living with Munu Kumar Yadav as his wife. He submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent voluntarily left the house of the applicant and went with one Munuram Yadav. Previously also, the respondent was caught red-handed in an objectionable condition with Munuram Yadav, due to which a social meeting was convened on 08.09.2021 and 09.09.2021, where Munuram Yadav admitted to having a relationship with the respondent. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent has a sufficient source of income, and further, since she is living in adultery and has voluntarily left the house of the applicant to live with Munuram Yadav, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Learned Family Court did not take into account that the applicant, respondent, and Munu Kumar Yadav had submitted affidavits during the social meeting, declaring that they were free to live separately. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant made several sincere efforts to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to return. Learned Family Court erred in awarding an excessive amount of maintenance to the 4 respondent, without considering the applicant’s low income, particularly when he is also responsible for maintaining his parents and other family members. He submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is living separately without any reasonable cause, and hence, she is not entitled to maintenance.ss 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek