1 2026:CGHC:7385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1244 of 2024 Nagesh Nishad S/o Ishwarlal Nishad Aged About 31 Years R/o Commandant C.F.S. 5th Battalion, Para, Post - Parpa, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Nishad W/o Nagesh Nishad, Aged About 28 Years R/o Sanjay Para Bhairamgarh, P.S. Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 1 0.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pravesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. I.A. No. 02/2024, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 12 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.08/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.11 12:39:10 +0530 2 directed the husband/applicant to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant and the respondent were married on 17.02.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Khursitikur, Post & P.S. Dondi, District Balod (C.G.). They lived together peacefully until 26.10.2021. The respondent alleged that the applicant and his family members taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry, as the applicant is a government servant. She further alleged that she was beaten on 07.03.2021 and subjected to physical and mental cruelty at her matrimonial home. Consequently, she lodged a complaint, pursuant to which conciliation proceedings were initiated. She also filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, wherein, by order dated 10.12.2022, the applicant was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. Additionally, she filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC, which is pending. The applicant denied all allegations before the Family Court. He submitted that after 03.03.2021, the respondent frequently quarreled over trivial issues and refused to take care of his parents. As he was posted in the police force line camp and residing with colleagues, the respondent was living with his parents at the matrimonial home. He contended that due to this arrangement, she often quarreled and left the matrimonial home without any just cause to reside with her father. He further stated that no dowry was demanded or accepted and expressed his willingness to resume cohabitation. He also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court framed the issues accordingly. The respondent examined herself as PW-1 and Kishanlal Nishad as PW-2. The applicant examined himself as DW-1 and Tejkumar Dhankar as DW-2 in defense. By the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 8/23, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance 3 of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the claim petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Dantewada, is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the present case. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is residing separately without any justifiable cause. The applicant is serving as a Constable in the 5th Battalion, Parpa, Jagdalpur, and resides in the camp due to the nature of his duties. It is practically impossible for him to accommodate his wife in the camp, as he lives there with his colleagues. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that the respondent has initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and his family members under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A of the IPC, compelling them to seek bail, which was granted by the learned Sessions Court. The Court also did not adequately consider that the applicant is responsible for the maintenance and care of his aged parents, yet directed payment of Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. The maintenance amount imposed places a heavy financial burden on the applicant. Both parties are young and could resume cohabitation and lead a peaceful married life; however, due to the respondent’s rigid and non-cooperative attitude, the marital relationship has deteriorated. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and liable to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the respondent/wife has stated that she is unemployed and has no source of 4 income. The applicant/husband has not produced any evidence on record to establish that the respondent is earning any income. Further, the applicant is employed as a Constable in government service and is an able-bodied person capable of earning. On behalf of the respondent, it has been stated that the applicant’s monthly income is Rs. 40,000/-. However, in his reply submitted in the year 2022, the applicant himself admitted that his salary was Rs. 30,000/- per month. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti