1 2026:CGHC:5553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 569 of 2024 Manish Meghwani S/o Ashok Meghwani, Aged About 34 Years R/o House No. 3019, Lalmitti Jhanada Chowk, Near Ghamapur Police Station, Jabalpur District Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh, P.S. Ghamapur, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh -482001 ... Applicant(s) versus Ritu Meghwani W/o Manish Meghwani, Aged About 34 Years R/o A-19, Steel City, Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur P.S. Khamhardih, Raipur District Raipur Chahttisgarh -492001 ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.132/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month, alleging that she married the applicant on 25.04.2018 according to Hindu rites and resided at her matrimonial home. She contends that the applicant, along with his family, harassed and mentally tortured her over minor dowry demands, used filthy language, and neglected her, forcing her to leave the matrimonial house and reside at her parental home. The respondent claims to have no independent income, while the applicant earns around Rs. 2,50,000/- per month from his business and property. The Family Court, after notice and framing of issues, allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance by order dated 28.02.2024. The applicant challenges the order as illegal and contrary to law, hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned maintenance order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. The applicant’s entire family, including his elderly parents, are fully dependent on him, and he has no other means to provide for them. The respondent, shortly after 3 marriage, disputed unnecessarily with the applicant and his family, threatened them with false criminal allegations, and acted cruelly, ultimately leaving the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. He further submits that the respondent has not produced any evidence or documents to prove the applicant’s income. The applicant runs a small cloth shop solely to maintain his parents and family, with no other property or agricultural land. The maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month is therefore excessive and unaffordable. The respondent has managed her life independently and has shown no willingness to return to the matrimonial home. He also submits that the respondent has also expressed her desire to divorce the applicant and executed a divorce deed in the presence of witnesses. Considering her conduct, refusal to cohabit, and failure to prove the applicant’s income, the impugned maintenance order is liable to be quashed or modified as it is unjust and legally unsustainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance, holding that the respondent was living separately from the applicant for sufficient and justified reasons and that the applicant 4 is a financially capable person with sufficient income and property to provide for her maintenance. The Court also considered the respondent’s lack of independent income and her entitlement to sustenance as the legally wedded wife of the applicant. 6. Considering the submissions 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 revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil