1 2026:CGHC:5558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 536 of 2024 Akshay Gupta S/o Shri Ram Narayan Aged About 25 Years By Caste- Teli R/o Ward No. -9, Main Road, Gudri Bazar, Lakhanpur, Post And Thana- Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Jyoti Gupta D/o Roshan Lal Aged About 22 Years W/o Shri Akshay Gupta R/o Village- Ahirapara, Patrapali, Thana And Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order of maintenance dated 29.04.2024 may kindly be set aside and the application of maintenance filed by the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:22:58 +0530 2 respondent may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the respondent on 30.11.2021 as per the customs prevailing in the society, and since 08.05.2023 the respondent has been residing separately at her parental house without any sufÏcient cause. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 30.06.2023, averring that after the marriage they resided peacefully for about three months, thereafter the behaviour of the applicant changed; he allegedly harassed her and demanded dowry, and when the respondent objected to such acts, he allegedly assaulted her. It was further averred that counseling took place, but there was no change in his behaviour. It is further averred in the application that the father of the respondent had given sufÏcient dowry and also transferred a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the bank account of the mother of the applicant and paid Rs. 61,000/- in cash to the applicant. It was further alleged that on 08.05.2023 the applicant assaulted her, due to which she left along with her parents and started residing at her parental home. It was further averred that the respondent is not doing any work and does not have sufÏcient means to maintain herself, whereas the applicant allegedly owns shops, a garage, and agricultural land and earns Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month, and therefore she claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. After service of notice, the applicant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the application and stated that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home without any sufÏcient reason and started residing with her parents, despite the applicant making all possible efforts to keep her with him and even expressing his readiness 3 to take her back through the Court. It was further averred in the reply that prior to the marriage, it was mutually decided by both families that the marriage expenses would be borne by both parties, and a joint reception was organised. The expenses incurred by the respondent’s family were deposited in the bank account of the applicant’s mother, and after settlement of expenses and payment of bills, the remaining amount of Rs. 61,000/- was handed over in cash. The applicant does not own any shop at Lakhanpur and is working as a small mechanic in another person’s shop and earns hardly about Rs. 5,000/- per month. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court recorded the statements and, relying upon the statement of the respondent, held the applicant liable to maintain the respondent and passed the impugned order. However, from the perusal of the evidence available on record, nothing is established to show that the respondent is residing separately with sufÏcient cause. The learned Court failed to consider the fact that the respondent is not willing to live the matrimonial life with the applicant without any sufÏcient reason and that she herself left the company of her husband. Despite this, the learned Court passed an order of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in passing the order of maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent from the date of application, despite the fact that the respondent is residing separately without any sufÏcient cause; therefore, she is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the applicant. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the applicant is earning only Rs. 5,000/- per month and is not in a position to earn more than Rs. 5,000/- per month; therefore, granting maintenance 4 of Rs. 3,000/- per month is on the higher side and arbitrary. He further submits that the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the respondent is not willing to reside with the applicant without any justifiable reason, as admitted by her in paragraph 5 of her examination; therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance under the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the agricultural land claimed by the respondent to belong to the applicant is actually owned by the father of the applicant, and the applicant does not earn any income from the said land, which is also evident from the evidence on record. The respondent herself admitted in paragraph 6 of her examination that the applicant is working as a mechanic and earns a very meagre amount; however, this material aspect was not considered by the learned trial Court. He further submits that except for the oral allegations of cruelty or harassment, there is no documentary evidence on record. No complaint was ever made by the respondent against the applicant or his family members, nor was any community meeting convened in this regard, which has been admitted by AW-2, the father of the respondent. The applicant made all possible efforts to keep his wife with him and to lead a matrimonial life; however, even during counselling, the respondent herself refused to reside with the applicant, which clearly establishes that she is residing separately without any sufÏcient cause. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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 on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 5 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek