1 2025:CGHC:34966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 159 of 2023 Raju Kumar Miraj S/o Rajkumar Miraj Aged About 20 Years R/o Dhrarampura, Police Station- Pipariya, Tahsil- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Anamika Miraj W/o Raju Kumar Miraj Aged About 19 Years R/o Dharampura, Police Station- Pipariya, Tahsil- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Samir Singh, 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 the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure R-1), passed by Judge Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 116/2021, 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. before the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) on 12.10.2021, seeking ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. She alleged that after a love affair, she and the applicant solemnized marriage at Shiv Mandir, Pipariya on 19.10.2020, supported by an Ikrarnama. They lived together peacefully for about 15–20 days, after which the applicant and his family allegedly began harassing her for dowry, used abusive language, and even threatened to burn her alive on 20.03.2021, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home on 22.03.2021. She later filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 31.03.2021, which is still pending. Despite an attempt at reconciliation, the alleged cruelty continued, prompting her to lodge another police complaint. She also accused the applicant’s family of taking and selling her gold. She claimed that the applicant, while studying in B.A. 2nd year, also worked as a part-time computer operator earning ₹8,000 per month. The applicant denied all allegations, asserting that he is financially dependent on his family and that the non-applicant left his company of her own accord. After hearing both sides, examining evidence and documents, the learned Family Court framed a single issue and, by order dated 3 04.07.2019, awarded ₹2,000 per month as maintenance to the non- applicant-wife from the date of application. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure R-1) is bad in law, perverse, and deserves to be set aside as it fails to consider key factual and legal aspects. The applicant-husband is a 20-year-old student currently pursuing B.A. 2nd year with no independent source of income and is financially dependent on his family. The marriage was a result of a love affair between two young individuals; however, due to immaturity and early age, differences arose, leading the non-applicant-wife, aged about 19, to voluntarily leave the husband’s company without any just or sufficient reason. Despite an amicable settlement recorded before the Mahila Cell, Kawardha wherein the wife herself stated she was living happily with her husband she again left his house without cause. A police inquiry under Section 155 Cr.P.C. also concluded that the wife had no sufficient reason for leaving and advised her to approach a competent court. The wife has filed multiple proceedings, including a pending domestic violence case under Section 12 of the DV Act, reflecting her unwillingness to cohabit with the husband. Furthermore, the non-applicant-wife is employed as a teacher at Unique Convent School, Kawardha, earning ₹3,500 per month, as proved by her salary slip and the testimony of DW-2 (Anup Kumar Shrivastava), and recorded in para 18 of the judgment. This material fact was suppressed by the wife. Under Section 125(4) 4 Cr.P.C., a wife who refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance, and in the present case, all the facts and evidence suggest that the wife is not legally entitled to the awarded maintenance. 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, Kawardha, District- Kawardha (Kabirdham), (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 has rightly exercised its discretion in awarding ₹2,000 per month as maintenance to the non-applicant-wife after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and financial circumstances of both parties. Despite the applicant’s denial, the non-applicant substantiated her claim with serious allegations of dowry harassment, threats, and physical and mental cruelty, which were also supported by her complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The court also took into account the fact that the applicant is a college student with limited income from part-time work and balanced the interests of both parties by granting a modest maintenance amount. Given the wife’s lack of stable income and her need for basic sustenance, the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is fair, just, and in accordance with the settled principles of law relating to maintenance. 5 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 records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan