1 2025:CGHC:36883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 271 of 2020 Yogendra Kumar Bandhaiya S/o G.D. Bandhaiya Aged About 39 Years R/o- Yogiraj Bhawan Main Road, Near Street No. 16, Pragati Nagar Risali, Ward No. 61 Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Bharti Bandhaiya W/o Yogendra Bandhaiya Aged About 34 Years R/o Plot No. 63, Phase-02, Sector-1, Anushtha Residency Junwani, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.243/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent got married on May 19, 2005, according to Hindu customs in Bhilai, and they have two daughters and one son from their marital life. After the marriage, the applicant and his family members started physically and mentally harassing the respondent over minor issues, beating her, and abusing her. The respondent was left at her parental home, with the excuse that she was unwell. Despite her parents informing the applicant that her health had improved, he did not come to take her back and instead threatened to harm her if she returned to her matrimonial home. A complaint was lodged on December 7, 2014, with the Guru Ghasi Sewa Samiti, Satnam Bhawan, Sector-6, regarding the harassment. The applicant is a Patwari and earns a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- and an additional income of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent has prayed for a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondent. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has granted monthly maintenance to the respondent as aforementioned. Hence, the revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned order dated January 3, 2020 (Annexure A-1) is liable to be set aside or the maintenance amount reduced, as it is illegal, invalid, arbitrary, and contrary to law and procedure, suffering from illegality and perversity. He further submits that the applicant has to maintain three minor children and his elderly parents, who are dependent on him, out of his monthly salary of Rs. 26,000/-. Although the wife did not prove the applicant's income, the applicant himself submitted his salary certificate. From this income, he has to support himself and five other dependents, as well as bear the significant expenses of school fees and other costs for the children's English medium education. He also submits that the wife left the applicant's house of her own accord and volition, and she has shown no attachment to the children. Therefore, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court is unjustified and liable to be set aside or reduced. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing that the marriage between the respondent and the applicant, as well as the birth of children from their marital life, has 4 been admitted by the applicant. Therefore, there is no need to draw a separate conclusion on this fact. Furthermore, as per the second proviso to Section 125(3) of CrPC, if the respondent does not offer to keep the applicant with him, then there is no need for the applicant to prove the reason for living separately. Therefore, in this case, the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately. He further observed that the respondent has stated that the applicant is working as a Patwari, which the applicant has not denied. Although the respondent’s side did not get the salary slip of the applicant examined, the applicant has attached his salary slip to the case, which shows his total salary to be Rs. 26,603/-. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to maintenance. 6. Considering the submissions 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil