1 2026:CGHC:2787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 322 of 2023 Sahdev Rajak S/o Shri Basant Lal Aged About 30 Years Caste Rajak, R/o Village Gonda, Post Chandramedha, P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Sangeeta Rajak W/o Sahdev Rajak Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sirauli, P.S. and Tahsil Manendragarh District - Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2. Kabir Rajak S/o Sahdev Rajak Aged About 4 Years R/o Village Sirauli, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicants For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, District – Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 90/2021, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the non- applicants, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant No.1, Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant No.2. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage of the applicant with non-applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.20 10:24:49 +0530 2 No. 1 was solemnized on 03.03.2016 at Village Sirauli. Out of the said wedlock, the parties were blessed with a child, namely non-applicant No. 2. . That, non-applicant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that after two years of marriage, the applicant used to harass her mentally and physically. It was further alleged that the applicant was having an illicit relationship with another woman. On the basis of these allegations, she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance for herself and Rs. 5,000/- per month for non-applicant No. 2 from the applicant. The learned Family Court framed three issues for consideration. The applicant examined himself as N.A.W.-1 and examined Asha Prasad Rajak as N.A.W.-2, whereas non-applicant No. 1 was examined as A.W.-1. The applicant filed Exhibit D/1, which is the Panchnama of a Panchayat meeting held in the village on 08.10.2020, wherein non-applicant No. 1 was allegedly found red-handed in a compromising position with one Hari Rajwade by the applicant. The learned Family Court, after appreciating the evidence available on record, held that the applicant has sufficient means and is capable of maintaining the non-applicants, and accordingly awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 2,000/- per month to non-applicant No. 2 (son). Hence, this revision is being filed against the aforesaid order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure A/1) is illegal, improper, and unjust, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the witnesses examined before it in its true and correct perspective, and has consequently arrived at an erroneous conclusion in holding that the respondent/applicant had shown sufficient cause to live separately from her husband. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court to the effect that the 3 respondent/applicant was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment, and that she is therefore entitled to maintenance, are not justified and are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the present petitioner/non-applicant never refused to keep his wife with him, and that it was the wife who left the matrimonial home of her own volition. She was allegedly caught red-handed in a compromising position with another person, in respect of which a Panchayat meeting was convened in the village, and the proceedings of the said meeting were placed on record as Exhibit D/1. However, the learned Family Court erroneously discarded the said evidence. Under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that if a wife is living in adultery, she is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Trial Court further failed to consider that non-applicant No. 1 failed to prove the income of the applicant through any cogent evidence, whereas the applicant is earning only about Rs. 5,000/- per month, making it financially difficult for him to pay maintenance as directed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 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 pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, 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, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court 4 has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires 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 sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti