1 CGHC010152852025 2026:CGHC:35320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 534 of 2025 Anil Banjare S/o Ajay Banjare Aged About 33 Years R/o Patalkundi, Police Station Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Neelam Banjare D/o Nageshwar Tandon Aged About 30 Years W/o Anil Banjare, R/o Patalkundi, Police Station Lalpur District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Mini Basti Jarhabhata, Ward No. 21, Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nisha Kannoujiya , Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Nisha Kannoujiya, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 8led by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), in ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.12 11:02:22 +0530 2 Misc. Criminal Case number 206/2022. 2. and/or pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem 1t as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 05.06.2017 in accordance with Hindu rites, rituals and customs. It is alleged by the respondent that soon after their engagement, the applicant used to assault and beat her. In this regard, a meeting of the Village Panchayat was convened, wherein the applicant gave an undertaking on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- that he would not harass the respondent and would keep her safely and properly. It is further alleged by the respondent that even after bringing her Stridhan, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the applicant and his family members continued to harass and assault her and demanded cash and a vehicle from her parental home. It is also alleged by the respondent that, for the purpose of securing employment for the applicant, she had given an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from her parental home. On the basis of the said amount, a society was established in the name of the respondent, however, the same is allegedly being controlled and operated by the applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant has not returned the said amount and has threatened the respondent with implicating her in a false case by committing forgery in the records of the society. Consequently, the respondent submitted an application before the learned Collector and the Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli, on 02.08.2021 seeking dissolution of the said society. It is further alleged by the respondent that the applicant, along with his mother, brother, uncle, grandfather and other family members, snatched all her ornaments and forcibly ousted her from the 3 matrimonial house on 28.07.2021, while demanding that she bring cash and a vehicle from her parental home. In this regard, on 03.08.2021, the respondent lodged a report against the applicant and his family members at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli. The respondent has further stated that she is not employed and is completely dependent upon her parents for her livelihood, whereas the applicant operates the aforesaid society and owns approximately 5 acres of agricultural land, from which, according to the respondent, he earns approximately Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the respondent claimed maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations made by the respondent and stated that neither the applicant nor his family members demanded any dowry at the time of marriage nor did they harass the respondent for dowry after the marriage. It was further stated that the Stridhan brought by the respondent had already been taken away by her. The family members of the respondent had never given an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the applicant. Rather, the respondent herself had requested the said amount for the purpose of operating the society. The respondent is the President of the said society and is capable of maintaining herself. It was further stated that the applicant does not own 5 acres of agricultural land. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and submissions, the applicant prayed before the learned Family Court for dismissal of the application for maintenance 8led by the respondent. 5. The learned Family Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as three issues and, vide order dated 29.03.2025, partly allowed the application and directed the applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 500/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent. 4 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law, facts and the circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court has erred in travelling beyond its jurisdiction and the procedure prescribed by law. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly show that the learned Family Court has based its 8ndings on unfounded grounds, the veracity of which has not been corroborated by any reliable evidence available on record. She submits that the learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent, without any justi8able reason, has deserted the applicant and, therefore, is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has failed to establish the 8nancial capacity and actual income of the applicant, as alleged by her in the application 8led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant has succeeded in establishing the earning capacity and independent source of income of the respondent, as stated in his reply. The learned Court has also erroneously ignored the admitted fact that the respondent is the President of a society and is operating the same, and is therefore capable of earning and maintaining herself. The learned Family Court has erred in awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the non- applicant without recording any speci8c 8nding regarding the actual monthly income or earning capacity of the applicant. She also submits that the learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent is also capable of earning and maintaining herself and has suAcient capacity to earn her livelihood. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent has not speci8cally established on record the expenses allegedly required for her maintenance and 5 livelihood. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is therefore improper, erroneous and contrary to the established judicial precedents and settled legal principles. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No.206/2022. 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 8led under Section 125 of the CrPC by the respondents. The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of the material available on record, awarded the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- to the 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 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