1 2026:CGHC:1656 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 36 of 2026 Vijendra Gadhewal S/o Deelip Gadhewal Aged About 36 Years R/o Vill- Silli, P.S. Mulmula, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Aashma Gadhewal W/o Vijendra Gadhewal Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Hp Gas Godown P.S. Sarkanda Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.01.2026 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 for records of the lower court and thereafter quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife. The respondent wife filed an application before the learned Family Court claiming that after her marriage, her RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 in-laws, including the applicant, allegedly harassed her for insufÏcient dowry, demanded cash and a motor cycle, and subjected her to mental and physical torture. She further alleged that the applicant conspired with her in-laws to pressurize her to file a false FIR against her brother-in-law, intimating her at the police station to comply, and threatened her with physical harm and uploading of private videos. The applicant, however, denied all allegations, stating that the disputes arose from trivial matters and that he never demanded dowry or tortured her. He further stated that the wife voluntarily went to her parents’ house and later visited her brother-in-law, where the applicant discovered inappropriate interactions. He supported her in reporting any wrongdoing by her brother-in-law, but thereafter she refused to reside with him, despite his repeated efforts, including during Mahila Thana counselling. The applicant also submitted that his net salary after liabilities is insufÏcient to maintain himself, his parents, and brother, and that the wife earns about Rs. 10,000/- through tailoring. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent wife by order dated 06.11.2025. Being aggrieved, the Applicant has filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the maintenance granted by the order dated 06.11.2025 is excessive and was passed without properly considering the present financial position of the applicant, whose net salary in hand is only Rs. 11,498/- and who has the responsibility to maintain his dependent parents and 3 brother, whereas the Respondent wife is gainfully employed as a tailor and capable of maintaining herself. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the Respondent wife voluntarily deserted the applicant without sufÏcient cause, failed to appreciate that the applicant had no adequate source of income, and disregarded that it was the wife herself who reported the sexual assault by her brother-in-law, with the applicant having no prior enmity or motive to falsely implicate him. The court also failed to appreciate that the applicant was willing to take the Respondent wife back to the matrimonial home, but she refused, and that the evidence and material on record were not evaluated correctly. For the aforesaid reasons, among others, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 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 due consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, has rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent wife. The court has correctly appreciated that the respondent has no independent source of income sufÏcient to meet her daily needs and that it is the legal and moral duty of the applicant husband to provide maintenance to his wife. The order is in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Family Court has properly evaluated the facts regarding the marital disputes, the separate residence of the wife, and the financial position of both parties before arriving at a 4 reasonable maintenance amount. 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