1 2026:CGHC:5821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 517 of 2024 Manoj Kumar S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jatahari, Ward No. 3, Line Paar, Tehsil Jatahari, District Anuppur (M.P.) ... Applicant versus Smt. Sadhna Vastrakar W/o Manoj Kumar, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parsada, Tehsil And P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Pavas Sharma , Advocate on behalf of Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Ms. Najmi Begum, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pavas Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi and Ms. Najmi Begum, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.03 13:24:09 +0530 2 “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 and dismiss the application under section 125 of CRPC in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance from the applicant, who is her husband, and claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19.05.2005 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and after marriage the applicant and the respondent resided in their matrimonial house situated at Village Jatahari. In the application it was alleged that the applicant and the respondent lived happily for about two years after marriage, and thereafter the applicant started quarrelling with the respondent. It was further alleged that the applicant often consumed liquor and thereafter used to abuse and assault her. Consequently, the respondent called her father and went to her parental house. It was further pleaded that after some time, the applicant came to take the respondent back, and after arriving at a compromise in the presence of elderly members of the society, the applicant took the respondent back to Village Jatahari; however, the applicant again started quarrelling with her. In March, 2020, the respondent again came to her parental house, but due to the lockdown she could not return to her matrimonial home. It was further alleged that during this period also, the applicant used to call her on her mobile phone, abuse her, and asked her not to return to the matrimonial house. It was further pleaded that the applicant is financially well-off and earning, and therefore the respondent prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month from the 3 applicant. 4. The applicant appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed his written statement, stating therein that the respondent used to quarrel with him and his parents and did not want to live jointly with his parents at Village Jatahari. The respondent also used to threaten the parents of the applicant with false implication in criminal cases and to send them to jail. The applicant had gone to Village Parsada to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to live with the applicant and did not return. The respondent does not wish to live with the applicant and had left the matrimonial house on 15.02.2020 with a person named Pankaj, and is presently residing with the said person. The applicant has no independent source of income and is totally dependent upon his father. The children of the applicant are also dependent upon the father of the applicant. 5. The learned Family Court, after recording the evidence of both the parties and hearing them, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case. Learned trial Court ought to have considered that although the marital relationship between the parties is not disputed, the respondent has deserted the applicant/husband and the children without any sufÏcient cause. Learned Family Court ought to have considered the fact that the respondent did not want to live in the matrimonial home and, since 15.02.2020, has been living separately with a person named Pankaj. He also submits that learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own volition along with Pankaj, without any 4 sufÏcient or justifiable cause. The learned Family Court ought to have considered that the respondent’s parental family is financially more stable than the applicant’s family, and due to the said reason, the respondent was not willing to adjust in the matrimonial home. Learned Family Court failed to consider the valuable electronic evidence placed on record in the form of a pen drive along with its transcript, wherein the respondent has clearly admitted her relationship with Pankaj and that she is residing with him. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the proceedings before the Family Court are summary in nature and, therefore, the strict application of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was not required. He submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that the applicant has no independent source of income and is totally dependent upon his father, and that the children of the applicant are also dependent upon the father of the applicant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly considering the pleadings, documents, and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondent. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent. 10. 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 5 cannot be said to be shockingly high warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek