1 2026:CGHC:5574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 308 of 2024 Ramsingh S/o Sukhiram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bihipara, Bundeli, Police Station Jhagarakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya Now Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Urmila W/o Ramsingh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bihipara, Bundeli, Police Station Jhagarakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Danikundi, Marwahi, Semardari, Police Station Jhagarakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District- Koriya Now Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 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 allow the revision and set-aside the order dated 12-01-2023, passed by the Court of learned Family Court, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), (Annexure A-1) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 42/2021, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent–wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance, pleading that her marriage with the applicant–husband was solemnized about ten years prior and that out of the wedlock they were blessed with one son, who has since expired. It was alleged that the parties lived peacefully for about six to seven years, thereafter the applicant subjected the respondent to cruelty and ultimately ousted her from the matrimonial home. The respondent further alleged that the applicant contracted a second marriage on 27.02.2021 and that despite approaching Police Station Manendragarh on 01.03.2021, no report was registered. The applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations of assault and ill- treatment and contended that the respondent used to frequently visit her parental home and, despite his efforts to reconcile, she refused to reside with him. He further pleaded that he is a labourer working under MGNREGA and earns approximately Rs.3,000/- per month. Upon consideration of the pleadings, framing of issues and appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Family Court passed an order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent–wife. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family 3 Court is bad in law, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant–wife is residing separately without any sufÏcient or reasonable cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Court further erred in ignoring the undisputed fact that the applicant/husband is working merely as a labourer under the MGNREGA scheme and is earning only about Rs.3,000/- per month, making it extremely difÏcult for him to maintain himself, and yet an exorbitant maintenance amount has been imposed upon him. It is further submitted that despite the categorical deposition of the applicant/husband that the respondent is unwilling to reside with him and has refused cohabitation, the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate such evidence and mechanically awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. The findings recorded by the learned Family Court are thus perverse, contrary to the material available on record and warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 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 has passed the impugned order after due consideration of the pleadings, issues framed and the evidence adduced by both the parties. The learned Court has rightly appreciated the marital relationship between the parties, the prolonged period of cohabitation and the material on record indicating neglect and refusal on the part of the applicant to 4 maintain the respondent–wife. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the learned Family Court has exercised judicious discretion by awarding a modest sum of Rs.3,000/- per month, keeping in view the earning capacity of the applicant as a labourer under the MGNREGA scheme and the basic needs of the respondent for her sustenance. The impugned order is reasoned, just and in consonance with the settled principles governing Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan