1 2026:CGHC:2016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 196 of 2023 Mahesh S/o Shatruhan Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Akola, Post Karesara, Thana And Tahsil Thankhamhariya, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Maya Bai W/o Mahesh Lodhi Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mohtara, Thana Chowki And Post Khandsara, Tahsil Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 218/2022, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, which was PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.16 11:18:01 +0530 2 registered as Criminal M.J.C. No. 218/2022. Thereafter, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 23/09/2022 awarding maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the respondent/applicant. The learned Court also awarded litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent/applicant. In her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent/applicant stated that her marriage with the petitioner/applicant was solemnized in the year 2000, and out of the said wedlock a male child was born, who is presently about 20 years old. The respondent/applicant further alleged that when she was 7–8 months pregnant, the petitioner/applicant used to abuse and beat her, due to which she left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. It was further submitted that the petitioner is the owner of 06 acres of agricultural land and is earning approximately Rs. 6 lakhs per annum from the said land. On these grounds, she prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month. The applicant filed his reply to the said application and denied all the allegations made by the respondent. The respondent submitted before the learned Family Court that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized about 29–30 years ago and that the respondent has been living separately for more than 20 years. It was further submitted that the applicant made several attempts to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to return. Subsequently, as per social customs (सDमDFजक छJड़ -छMNO), both parties mutually agreed to live separately. The respondent also informed the applicant that she would not return and would remarry. Since the applicant made several attempts to take back the respondent but she consistently refused, and due to the social separation (सDमDFजक छJड़ -छMNO), the petitioner contracted a second marriage. From the said second marriage, the applicant has two children. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the reason that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent has been residing separately at her parental home for the past 22 years and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the applicant and, on such erroneous assessment, passed the impugned order. As per social customs (सDमDFजक रOFत-FरवDज), the applicant and the respondent had mutually agreed to live separately; however, with the sole intention of obtaining maintenance, the respondent filed the present application. The respondent filed the application for maintenance after a lapse of more than 22 years from the date of separation and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. For the reason that, pursuant to the mutual social separation (सDमDFजक छJड़ -छMNO) between the applicant and the respondent, the applicant contracted a second marriage, from which two children were born, and the applicant is legally obligated to maintain them as well. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence in support of her alleged illness, and the impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The applicant was always ready and willing to reside with the respondent; however, she refused to live with him, and the parties have been living separately for more than 22 years. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the 4 applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti