1 2026:CGHC:3089 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 646 of 2023 Rakesh Choudhary S/o Ranjan Choudary Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bouridand, P.S. And Tehsil Manendragarh, District - Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Bharti Choudary W/o Rakesh Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Pondi Chondi Barbaspur, Tehsil Kotma, District Anuppur M.P. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Mandwi Bharadwaj, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record from the courts below as well as Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 12.04.2023, passed in the Misc. Criminal Case Number 46/2022 Smt. Bharti RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Choudary Vs. Rakesh Choudhary by The Judge, Family Court Manendragarh District Manendragarh-Bharatpur-Chirimiri, (C.G.), Any other relief/s which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent filed an application stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu customs on 23.04.2012, and initially lived peacefully in the matrimonial home. It was alleged that after the respondent refused to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her maternal home, the applicant, allegedly under the influence of liquor, physically assaulted her, following which she has been living in her maternal home since 2019. The respondent claimed that the applicant has not provided any maintenance despite earning Rs. 500/- per day as a carpenter and owning 5 acres of land, and sought Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The applicant filed a reply denying all allegations, contending that the respondent frequently quarreled with him and his family, that he has no permanent source of income or agricultural land, and that he has repeatedly offered to keep the respondent, who refused to live with him. The learned Family Court, however, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance on 12.04.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred both on facts and in law in allowing the application for maintenance. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any regular source of income and is merely a labourer, whereas the respondent is residing at her maternal home without any sufÏcient reason. The applicant has also reported the matter to the local police station at Manendragarh, and a copy of the report under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. is filed as Annexure P/2. It is further submitted that the respondent is capable of earning and sustaining herself, and therefore is not entitled to any relief from the applicant. The present revision petition has been filed well within the period of limitation. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after carefully considering the pleadings, evidence, and material on record, has rightly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The Court correctly observed that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and is entitled to maintenance for her sustenance and well-being. The learned Court, while taking into account the applicant’s income and occupation, as well as the circumstances of the parties, has passed a reasonable and just order to ensure that the basic needs of the respondent are met. The impugned order is therefore in accordance with law, well-reasoned. 4 6. Considering the submission 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 criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan