1 2025:CGHC:31324 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 268 of 2020 Ashok Kohli S/o Late Satyapal Kohli Aged About 65 Years Resident Of Kohli Traders, Goal Bazar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Beena Kohli W/o Ashok Kohli Aged About 62 Years Resident of Shanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel the 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 and the impugned order dated 22/01/2020 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in M.Cr.C. No. 1089/2018, may kindly be set aside, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant (non-applicant before the Family Court) has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 22/01/2020 passed by the Family Court, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the non- applicant (applicant before the Family Court) was allowed and a monthly maintenance of ₹50,000/- was awarded. The parties were married on 02/02/1982 at Bilaspur as per Hindu rites, and out of their wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. It was alleged by the wife that she was subjected to cruelty and assault by the husband, due to which she started residing separately. She further claimed that the husband is a businessman earning approximately ₹5,00,000/- per month, while she has no independent means of livelihood. The husband denied all allegations, contending that the wife misbehaved with his family members and forced him to live separately, and that no marital relations existed since 2007-08. Despite his objections, the Family Court allowed the application and granted the aforementioned maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court failed to frame any specific 3 issue regarding the income of the non-applicant and, without proper assessment or calculation, erroneously determined the quantum of maintenance. It overlooked the fact that the shops from which the income was presumed to be earned are owned by the non- applicant’s mother, and the non-applicant has no legal right or share in the said income. Furthermore, the learned Court did not consider that the non-applicant is a senior citizen with limited means and failed to appreciate that the applicant and non-applicant have been living separately since January 2018 due to the applicant’s cruel behavior. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 22/01/2020, allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarding monthly maintenance of ₹50,000/- to the non-applicant (wife). The Court, after considering the long duration of marriage since 02/02/1982 and the fact that the parties have three children from their wedlock, rightly took into account the allegations of cruelty, physical assault, and abandonment made by the wife, which remained unrebutted by the applicant (husband). The Family Court also considered the wife’s financial dependence and the husband’s substantial income as a businessman, estimated to be around ₹5,00,000/- per month, while the wife has no independent source of livelihood. The Court, therefore, passed a just and 4 reasonable order ensuring the non-applicant’s right to live with dignity, in accordance with the settled principles of law relating to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan