1 2026:CGHC:5559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 527 of 2024 Arun Kumar Sandey S/o Late Rikhiram Sandey, Aged About 36 Years Village Murlidih, P.S. And Tehsil Akltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Currently Residing At Block B, Quarter No. B/83, N.T.P.C. Sipat, P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Durga Sandey W/o Arun Kumar Sandey, Aged About 28 Years Caste - Satnami, R/o Village Menhdi, P.S. Shivrinaryan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel, appearing, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “This Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:22:37 +0530 2 P-1); 2. To reject the application of the respondent herein/applicant, filed before the Family Court Janjgir- Champa, u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C.; 3. And to allow this revision petition accordingly.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent had moved an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., pleading inter alia as under:– that the applicant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rituals on 03.07.2017 at Sadbhavna Bhawan, Pamgarh, P.S. & Teh. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). After the marriage, the respondent went to the applicant’s residence situated at Krishna Vihar, Bilaspur. On 04.07.2017, a reception was organized, following which the respondent returned to her parental home on 05.07.2017 as per customary rituals. On 10.07.2017, the applicant along with his maternal uncle went to the residence of the respondent to bring her back to the matrimonial home, whereupon the respondent accompanied the applicant to lead their married life. On the very same day, which also happened to be the first night of marriage for the couple, the applicant allegedly could not consummate the marriage. On the next day also, the marriage was allegedly not consummated. Thereafter, the respondent went back to her parental home on 12.07.2017. 4. The applicant herein filed a reply to the above application filed by the respondent, pleading inter alia as under:– that all the adverse allegations made in the application were denied. It was stated in the reply that the respondent-wife was not liking the applicant from the very beginning and that false allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the application. The applicant made several attempts to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home, but on every occasion she refused to 3 return. It was further pleaded that the applicant is under severe financial burden and that the respondent is residing at her parental home of her own free will; therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 5. The learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent, vide order dated 04.08.2023. 6. Before the learned Family Court, the applicant/respondent examined herself as applicant Witness No.-01, Mahavir Jangde as applicant Witness No.-02, and Smt. Meera Dahariya as applicant Witness No.-03. The applicant herein, who was the non-applicant before the Family Court, examined himself as Non-Applicant Witness No.-01, Rampal Sande/Khande as Non-Applicant Witness No.-02, and Maheshwar Kurre as Non-Applicant Witness No.-03. 7. After perusal of the pleadings, documents submitted by the parties, and the statements recorded before the Court, the learned Family Court passed the impugned order holding that the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 11,000/- per month from the date of the order. The Family Court concluded that the respondent-wife had sufÏcient reason to live separately. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife had deserted the applicant in the year 2017 itself. She survived for more than three years and thereafter, in the year 2020, filed an application for grant of maintenance. From this conduct, it is evident that the respondent had sufÏcient sources of income to maintain herself during the period from 2017 to 2020. All of a sudden, after a gap of three years, she filed the application for maintenance, which clearly establishes that she was financially self- dependent and did not require any maintenance. He also submits that 4 the Family Court further erred in ignoring the fact that the respondent- wife had deserted the applicant about seven years ago. She neither moved any application for restitution of conjugal rights nor made any effort to return to the matrimonial home. Instead, she made incorrect and unsubstantiated allegations against the applicant. The respondent herein resided in the house of the applicant for not more than two days. Leaving the matrimonial home after only two days, not returning for more than three years, making no effort to resume cohabitation, and surviving independently for three years before filing the application for maintenance clearly demonstrate that the respondent had practically deserted the applicant without any valid or sufÏcient reason and, therefore, was not entitled to any maintenance. He further submits that the finding of the Family Court regarding the alleged sufÏcient cause for the respondent-wife to live separately is not supported by any documentary evidence. The allegations are purely oral in nature and were specifically denied by the petitioner in his reply before the Family Court. Hence, the conclusion of the Court below that the applicant had sufÏcient reason to live separately is erroneous and unsustainable. The quantum of maintenance fixed by the Family Court is also on the higher side. The applicant is under heavy financial burden, including a housing loan and other liabilities towards his family members, which have not been duly considered by the Family Court. The learned Family Court erred in placing undue emphasis on the alleged income and ownership of property of the applicant without properly appreciating whether the respondent had sufÏcient cause to live separately. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent did not prove any valid or justifiable reason for living away from the applicant, and the allegations made in her application were not substantiated by any documentary 5 evidence. While determining the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court ought to have considered the actual income derived by the applicant from the alleged property and not merely the size or ownership of such property. Hence, the assessment made by the Court below is wholly incorrect and arbitrary. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is well-qualified and capable of maintaining herself and, in such circumstances, she was not entitled to maintenance. It is further submitted that when the respondent left the matrimonial home, she took away all her ornaments and jewellery which were given to her at the time of marriage from the applicant’s side. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in M.J.C. No. 325/22. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek