1 2026:CGHC:361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 90 of 2023 Devprasad Kaiwart S/o Shri Kholbahra @ Bhakdan Kaiwart, Aged About 49 Years R/o. Village And Post - Matiya, Thana - Gidhouri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh (Applicant Residing In Parmanent Address) ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Bhuneshwari Kaiwart W/o Shri Devprasad Kaiwart, Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village And Post - Matiya, Thana - Gidhouri, Tahsil - Kasdol, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 05 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by learned Judge Family Court Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Misc. 2 Criminal Case No.35/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent were married in the year 1990 at Village Purgaon as per social customs and lived together as husband and wife for about 30 years, out of which two children were born. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the applicant, claiming that she left the matrimonial home without support from in-laws and further alleging that the applicant contracted a second marriage on 06.02.2022. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The applicant denied all allegations, contending that the respondent left the house without sufficient cause, forcibly ousted him with the help of their son, and took over the house and agricultural land, while he is residing in rented premises and repaying loan installments. The learned Family Court, relying mainly on the statement of the respondent, held the applicant liable to pay maintenance and passed the impugned order, despite absence of evidence establishing sufficient cause for separate residence, leading to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month in favour of the respondent without considering the financial 3 liabilities of the applicant. The applicant is residing in a rented house and is required to maintain himself as well as his aged parents. A substantial amount is deducted from his salary towards EMIs, including Rs. 26,000/- per month for the housing loan and Rs. 7,000/- per month from his Army pension towards a personal loan, besides paying Rs. 4,000/- per month as house rent. In view of these liabilities, the maintenance awarded is irrational and highly excessive. He further submits that learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent, along with the children, continuously harassed the applicant and forcibly ousted him from the matrimonial house and property. The respondent is in possession of the house and agricultural land of the applicant and is earning income from the said land, which clearly disentitles her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He also submits that learned trial Judge further failed to consider the documentary evidence and witness statements produced by the applicant, which clearly establish that the respondent is not willing to reside with the applicant without any sufficient cause. On the contrary, the respondent forcibly expelled and assaulted the applicant, including incidents at his workplace, for which criminal proceedings are pending. Hence, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. 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 4 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the entire oral and documentary evidence and the circumstances of the case, it has been concluded that respondent has successfully established sufficient cause for living separately from the applicant on account of his second marriage without obtaining a lawful divorce and consequent neglect. The applicant has been found to be an able-bodied and financially capable person, whereas respondent is unable to maintain herself. Accordingly, the Family Court concluded that the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C from the applicant, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 5 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil