1 2025:CGHC:32949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 329 of 2022 Hemlal Diwakar S/o Late Kani Ram Diwakar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ganiyaribhata, Police Station Kartala, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Sumitra Diwakar W/o Hemlal Diwakar Aged About 28 Years Present R/o Village Godhi, Police Station Balko Nagar, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Roshan Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.111/2019, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed and applicant has PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.17 14:06:55 +0530 2 directed to pay amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and respondent were married on 06.07.2016, in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions. After the marriage, they lived in the matrimonial house, where the respondent alleged that she was subjected to torture and harassment by the petitioner and his family members over dowry and other issues. The respondent claimed that a mediation proceeding was conducted at the Centre for Women Help and Family Counseling, Korba, on 13.08.2018, where the couple was advised to live together. However, the respondent was denied living with the petitioner's family, and the dispute escalated. The applicant denied the allegations, stating that he is willing to live with the respondent and that she is not comfortable with the joint family culture. He claimed that his financial condition does not allow for separate accommodation. The applicant works as a laborer in a local brick manufacturing unit on an irregular basis, earning a meager income. The respondent has been living with her parents since 2018, and the applicant has filed this revision petition challenging the maintenance order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Learned Family Court is flawed in law and fact. The respondent wife deserted the applicant without reason and chose to live with her parents, disqualifying her from maintenance. The respondent wife failed to fulfill marital obligations and prevented conjugal relations. The applicant is willing to live with the respondent, but she is uncomfortable with the joint family setup, which the applicant cannot afford to change. The respondent failed to prove the applicant's income, despite being responsible for establishing it. The applicant’s irregular and meager earnings as a laborer make the granted maintenance amount 3 unfeasible. The applicant challenges the maintenance order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondent/wife has stated in the context of her maintenance that she does not do any work at present, the applicant works in Laco plant. The applicant earns Rs. 15,000/- per month by working in Laco plant. There is also farming in her in-laws' house, from which paddy is produced and they earn income by selling it. Therefore, the applicant is a person capable of earning income by doing labour work. The respondent has stated that she is unable to maintain herself. Therefore, the respondent has been successful in proving the fact that the applicant is capable of giving maintenance amount to the respondent and is responsible for maintaining the respondent and the applicant is a 30-year-old young man, a healthy person, which clearly shows that the applicant is capable of earning income. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 4 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti