1 2026:CGHC:923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 355 of 2023 Janaki Lal Kosariya S/o Late K. V. Ram Kosariya Aged About 49 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Balgi Nagar, Tahsil Katghora, P.S. Bankimongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Meena Kosariya W/o Janaki Lal Kosariya Aged About 41 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Sharda Vihar, Korba, P.S. Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Chandra Prakash Lahrey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 0 7.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case. No. - 134/2021, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month to respondent/wife. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. It was stated that the applicant solemnized marriage with the respondent on 12.05.1999 and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.08 14:19:09 +0530 2 that, after a long period of marriage, the applicant and his family members harassed and mentally tortured the respondent on account of insufficient dowry and also demanded money from her. It was further stated that the applicant is working in the SECL Project as an Electrician and earns an annual income of Rs. 1,09,321/-. The respondent has no source of income and, therefore, sought maintenance of Rs. 70,000/- from the applicant in the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. After issuance of notice, the applicant filed a reply denying all the averments made in the application. The learned Family Court, after framing the issues, passed an order dated 14.03.2023, whereby the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the respondent. The impugned order dated 14.03.2023 is wholly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents produced by the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent has made false allegations against the applicant. After nearly 20 years of marriage, the respondent frequently quarrelled with the applicant and his family members without any justifiable reason. She was unwilling to reside with the applicant in the joint family and repeatedly pressured him to live separately. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance, and the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the respondent, of her own volition and without any sufficient cause, left the applicant’s house and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent treated the applicant and his family members with cruelty and deserted the matrimonial home. It is also submitted that, soon after the marriage, the respondent showed no interest in marital life 3 and refused to live with the applicant and his family members. Hence, the impugned maintenance order deserves to be set aside. The respondent left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and has made no effort to return and reside with the applicant. Without prejudice to the above, the maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month is excessive and on the higher side, and therefore liable to be reduced or set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti