1 2025:CGHC:36842 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 249 of 2024 Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri S.K. Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o. Near Ankit Pan Palace, In Front of Malsai Talab, Professor Colony Road, Kushalpur Police Station Purani, Basti Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Seema Sharma W/o. Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years R/o Sai Darbar Road, Mahadev Ghat, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Devin Sharma S/o. Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 10 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Aged About 06 Years In The Impugned Order) Minor Through Their Mohter Smt. Seema Sharma D/o Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Sai Darbar Road, Mahadev Ghat, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Ku. Urvashi Sharma D/o Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 07 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Aged About 02 Years In The Impugned Order) Minor Through Their Mohter Smt. Seema Sharma D/o Rajkumar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Sai Darbar Road, Mahadev Ghat, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the impugned by the judgment dated 05.12.2023, passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 97/2019, may kindly be set-aside.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The marriage between the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 04.05.2009 at Marhi Mata Mandir, Raipur, according to Hindu customs and rituals. Two children, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were born out of the said wedlock. It has been alleged that the applicant constantly doubted the character of respondent No.1 and kept demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- from her. It is further alleged that he used to assault her. The husband and wife have been living separately since April 2017. 4. The applicant has filed a reply to the said application, denying all the averments made by respondent No.1. It has been submitted by the applicant that respondent No.1 voluntarily left her matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and is living separately without any 3 sufficient cause. The applicant has expressed his willingness to reside with the respondents. It has also been stated that respondent No.1 made baseless allegations against the applicant and his family members and pressured the applicant to live at her parental home. Even during counseling before the police, the respondent No.1 refused to cohabit. Furthermore, in 2011, the applicant had opened a boutique for respondent No.1, from which she is earning approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month. 5. Learned Family Court framed two issues and recorded the statements of the parties, including those of the applicant and respondent No.1. 6. By the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2023, the learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the respondents and held that respondent No.1 is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs. 2,000/- per month each. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant clearly deposed in his cross-examination that he is currently unemployed and has no source of income. He submits that learned Family Court failed to properly consider the statements of the parties, which clearly establish that respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home of her own volition, there has been a clear and blatant violation of the well-settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh v. Neha. He also submits thatthe impugned order is bad in law, perverse, and arbitrary, the order passed by the learned Family Court is erroneous and suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities, the order granting maintenance from the date of the application is erroneous and deserves to be set-aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment 4 of the learned Family Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicnat, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents 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