1 CGHC010144792025 2026:CGHC:37122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 504 of 2025 Akshay Kumar @ Chhatrabhan S/o Shri Premshankar @ Munna Lal Gabel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (At Present District Sakti) - Presently Resided At Mohalla Dabripara, Near New Ganesh Pandal Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) Pin 495677 ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Anjali @ Vandana Gabel W/o Shri Akshay Gabel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Arjuni, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (At Present District Sakti), Presently Resided At Railway Colony, Kirodimal Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19 /08/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, 2 Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.F- 163/2022, 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.4,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent were married on 16.02.2020 at Village Dhaskamuda, District Raigarh, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and thereafter resided together at Village Arjuni, District Janjgir-Champa. It is alleged by the respondent-wife that after marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demand and, within about 5–6 months, she started residing separately with her parents. The respondent-wife thereafter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, contending that she had no independent source of income, whereas the applicant was employed at Korba Plant and earned approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, besides agricultural income of about Rs.6 lakhs per annum. The applicant opposed the application, alleging that he had made efforts through relatives and social persons to bring the respondent back, but she refused to resume cohabitation. He further submitted that a decree of divorce had subsequently been passed in his favour on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent. After considering the pleadings and evidence led by both parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 3 04.03.2025, partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present petition, challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and material available on record. The learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and has awarded maintenance without the respondent proving the actual income and financial capacity of the applicant. The amount of maintenance awarded is also excessive considering the financial condition of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Family Court has further erred in allowing the application without properly considering the applicant’s defence that he had not subjected the respondent to any cruelty and that, rather, the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and refused to resume cohabitation despite the applicant’s efforts. Therefore, according to the applicant, the respondent was not entitled to claim maintenance. He also submits that the impugned order, being based on improper appreciation of evidence and material facts and having been passed in an arbitrary manner, is liable to be set aside or suitably modified. The applicant craves leave to urge such other grounds as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 4 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.4,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance, holding that the respondent had sufficient justification to live separately from the applicant in view of the allegations of physical and mental cruelty and the compromise executed between the parties. The learned Family Court further held that the respondent had no sufficient independent source of income to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was employed at Korba Plant and had sufficient means to maintain her. It was also observed that the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court was stayed by this Court in appeal and, therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent on the basis of the said decree. Accordingly, considering the circumstances of the parties, the applicant's income, prevailing inflation and other relevant factors, the Family Court awarded maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 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 5 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