1 2026:CGHC:4717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No.972 of 2024 Manoj Banjare S/o. Shri Ghanaram Banjare Aged About 36 Years, At Village - Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, Tahsil - Aarang, District – Raipur, (C.G.), ... Applicant versus Smt. Triveni Banjare W/o. Manoj Banjare, D/o. Shri Jagmohan Chelak, Aged About 33 Years, At Village - Kosrangi, P.S. Kharora, Tahsil - Aarang, District - Raipur (C.G.), Presently At- Mahobiya Paan Gali, Jal Grah Marg, Dhabrapara, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.), ... Respondent For Applicant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate. None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal MCC No.893/2022, whereby the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and it has been directed that the applicant/husband shall pay maintenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife/respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, this revision has been filed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage between PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.30 09:45:44 +0530 2 the applicant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 28.04.2007 whereafter they begot a male child and after separation between the parties, the said son is living with the applicant who is bearing all the child's educational and other expenses. After more than 14 years of marriage, on the basis of concocted story, the respondent wife preferred an application u/s 125 CrPC stating that after her marriage she was maltreated by the applicant for the demand of dowry. The petitioner after appearing before the trial court, filed his detailed reply against the maintenance petition along with a reply against the interim application and specifically submitted that he has never maltreated the respondent and that he was drawing INR 57,000/- salary from his job out of which INR 5,000/- was being spent by him for the education and livelihood of his son whereas his mother was facing several serious diseases because of which her treatment was being taken from Balaji Institute of Medical Science due to which he faced monthly expenses of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. After the respective plaint and written statement of the parties, the trial court proceeded for evidence and in support of their contention, the respective parties produced their witnesses before the trial court whereafter the trial court heard the final arguments. It is also worth stating here that the applicant duly produced and exhibited the documents in respect of his assets and liabilities from which it is perusable that his mother and father were suffering from serious ailments which has also been admitted by the respondent. But the trial court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and further without appreciating that the 3 respondent had left the company of the applicant without any justifiable or substantive reason and is living in adultery, allowed the maintenance petition and the interim maintenance which was awarded INR 10,000/- was increased to INR 15,000/- without assigning any reason behind that. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence and documents available on record. He further submits that though the applicant is drawing a salary of INR 57,000/- but is paying monthly installments of his loans to the tune of INR 35,000/- per month and he not only bears the responsibility to serve his family but also bears the treatment expenses of his old age parents. It is also worth stating here that the trial court also failed to appreciate that the respondent in her cross- examination has admitted that the said loans were obtained when she was residing along with the applicant and despite that without appreciating the same, hefty amount has been awarded as final maintenance towards the wrongdoer wife. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and the other documents available on record. 5. From perusal of the evidence available on record and further on perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent is the wife of the applicant/husband and she is living separately from her husband due to sufficient reasons and she is not capable of 4 maintaining herself. Furthermore, the respondent is a house wife and is stated to be educated upto 12th standard and has no source of income. This apart, the applicant/husband is a teacher and is earning Rs.57,000/- per month and he is person of means and is capable of earning sufficient income to support the respondent/wife. Considering the above facts and further, considering the social and economic status of both the parties, it was ordered dated 25.06.2024 that the applicant/husband would pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to respondent/wife as maintenance, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti