1 2026:CGHC:1088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 497 of 2022 Mandaldas Khunte S/o Karandas Khunte, Aged About 25 Years R/o. Village Mohra, Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Saraswati Bai W/o Mandaldas Khunte Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Mohra, Police Station Suhela, Tahsil Simga, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 3led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set-aside/reduce the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant and the respondent are undisputedly husband and wife, whose marriage RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 was solemnized on 02.12.2018 at Village Mohra. Out of the wedlock, a daughter namely Purvi was born, who unfortunately expired on 30.01.2020. After the marriage, the respondent alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of demand of dowry, pursuant to which complaints were made before Police Station Suhela on 17.06.2019 and before the Superintendent of Police on 17.03.2021, culminating in registration of a criminal case and 3ling of charge-sheet, which is pending before the competent Court. Thereafter, the respondent/wife 3led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, claiming that the applicant/husband owns about seven acres of irrigated land, possesses a tractor and trolley, and earns substantial income, and sought maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant/husband 3led his written statement denying the allegations and contending that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own accord. Upon considering the pleadings and material available on record, the learned Family Court, by the impugned order, awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent, which according to the applicant is on the higher side, giving rise to the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, perverse, and suAers from procedural as well as factual in3rmities and is therefore liable to be set aside or suitably reduced. It is contended that the respondent/wife herself voluntarily 3 left the matrimonial home without any justi3able cause and is residing at her parental house of her own free will, and hence she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that the wife is a healthy and able-bodied lady and is earning approximately Rs.300/- per day. It is also submitted that the applicant is solely dependent on daily labour work and earns only about Rs.3,000/- per month, has no regular source of income, and is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged mother. The allegation regarding ownership of a tractor and agricultural income is denied as false, erroneous, and fabricated. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month is unjusti3ed and deserves interference. 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, Balodabazar, after duly considering the pleadings of both the parties, the material placed on record, and the rival submissions, has rightly passed the impugned order awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. The learned Court has taken into account the undisputed marital relationship between the parties, the circumstances leading to their separation, and the allegations of cruelty, which are the subject matter of a pending criminal case. The learned Family Court has also examined the respective claims regarding income and means of the applicant and, upon overall appreciation of the facts and 4 evidence, has exercised its judicial discretion in 3xing a reasonable and modest amount of maintenance. The impugned order is a reasoned and well-considered order, passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the 3nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in3rmity 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 certi3ed copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan