1 2026:CGHC:1966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 589 of 2023 Vijay Kumar Manjhi S/o Shri Ramautar Manjhi Aged About 32 Years Caste Kenwat, Profession Driver, R/o Tulsipara Main Road Nagpur, Police Chouwki Nagpur, P S Pondi, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Usha W/o Vijay Kumar Manjhi Aged About 29 Years (D/o Harinath Kenwat), Caste Kenwat, Profession Housewife R/o Village Ranai, P S Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpuri, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) in AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Misc. Criminal Case No.06/2020, 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.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent are legally married since 25.06.2012. The applicant-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground of cruelty and desertion, alleging that she was harassed and twice expelled from her matrimonial home by the respondent and his family members, and has since been living with her parents. The respondent-husband denied the allegations, claimed that the applicant is an earning woman capable of maintaining herself, alleged false criminal cases and prior settlement, and pleaded his poor financial condition. After hearing both parties, the Family Court, Baikunthpur, by order dated 28.02.2023, allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance from the date of application, holding that the applicant was living separately for sufficient cause. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence available on record, and suffers from serious legal infirmities. He further submits that the learned Court Family Court failed to consider the material fact that the 3 criminal case lodged by the applicant against the respondent and his family members ended in their acquittal, which clearly shows false implication and amounts to cruelty and harassment of the respondent. He also submits that the applicant is not unable to maintain herself, as she is working as a computer operator earning about Rs.8,000 per month, owns agricultural land, and has already received a lump-sum amount of Rs.70,000 towards maintenance, hence she is not entitled to further maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that 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.3,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance observing the evidence on record, the Family Court held that the respondent-wife is living separately from the applicant-husband for sufficient and justified reasons, including cruelty, expulsion from the matrimonial home, and the husband keeping another woman. The Court further found that the applicant has sufficient means to maintain the respondent, while the respondent has no reliable source of income. Accordingly, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, and the applicant was directed to pay monthly maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 4 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil