1 2025:CGHC:48596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 204 of 2021 Rakesh Tirkey S/o Shri Meshrak Tirkey Aged About 25 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Village Katgodi, Usnapara, P. S. And Tahsil Sonhat District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Nisha Kujur W/o Rakesh Tirkey Aged About 22 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Amhar, Panchayat Pondi, P.S. Sonhat, Tahsil Sonhat, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set- aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Family Court Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh, presided by Shri Prabhat Shashtri, in Misc. Crminal Case No. 96/2018 ord granted maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- may be reduced, in the interest of justice.” ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.22 17:56:39 +0530 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The applicant had solemnized his marriage with the respondent according to Hindu rites and rituals at Amhar Panchayat Podi on 26.05.2015. After a few days of marriage, the applicant allegedly harassed and tortured the respondent by using filthy language, and despite requests, he did not change his behavior. Thereafter, the respondent left her matrimonial home of her own will. It was further stated that the applicant is working as a driver and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary, whereas the respondent has no source of income. Hence, the respondent filed the application seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After notice was issued, the applicant filed his reply denying all the averments made in the application. He stated that the respondent quarreled with him without any reason and voluntarily left her matrimonial home, and that she is capable of maintaining herself. 5. Learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed the order dated 22.05.2019, whereby it allowed the application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The present applicant/non- applicant is a labourer and, considering his family condition, he is not in a position to maintain the respondent/applicant. He submits that it is necessary to mention here that the respondent/applicant, without any sufficient reason, left her matrimonial home. Therefore, she is not entitled to the benefit of maintenance, and the impugned order deserves to be set 3 aside. The respondent/applicant, on her own motion, left the house of the applicant. Hence, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has never ill-treated the respondent and has always tried to maintain his matrimonial life, but the respondent refused to live with him. In fact, the dispute between the parties had also been compromised in a meeting of the Gram Panchayat. Learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent, without any sufficient cause, left the house of the applicant and is living separately. The respondent has left her matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and has also made no effort to return and reside with the applicant. He further submits that the amount of maintenance awarded is on the higher side and is iable to be modified. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has not proved the income of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance amount of Rs. 2,500/- awarded against the applicant is liable to be quashed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek