1 2026:CGHC:4426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 457 of 2024 Ramesh Banjare S/o Late Shri Ramayan Banjare Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mudhpar (Khisaura), Police Station Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Varsha @ Barkha Banjare W/o Ramesh Banjare Aged About 23 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Mudhpar (Khisaura), Police Station Navagarh, Present Address- Godhna, Police Station Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the court below and after being satised may kindly be pleased to:- 1. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Janjgir, District- Janjgir Champa, (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case number 464/2022, titled as Smt. Varsha @ Barkha Banjare Vs. Ramesh Banjare and 2. reject/ the applicant's application for grant of Interim Maintenance led within application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. 3. and/or pass any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem t as per the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/wife 7led an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 24.06.2021 and that since 21.11.2021 she has been residing separately, on the ground that after marriage the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment on account of unlawful demands of a motorcycle and mobile phone, and ultimately assaulted and sent her to her parental house, it was further pleaded that despite intervention by elders and a village meeting, the conduct of the applicant did not improve, and even a complaint lodged at Police Station Nawagarh yielded no result, the respondent asserted that she has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant, being a Rajmistri, earns about Rs. 15,000/- per month and also owns irrigated agricultural land yielding annual income, yet neglected to maintain her, the applicant, in his reply, denied the allegations and contended that the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and is herself capable of maintaining herself by working as a labourer, 3 after recording evidence of the parties and their witnesses, the learned Court, by impugned order dated 28.02.2024, held that the respondent had su>cient cause to live separately, that she has no source of income, and that the applicant has su>cient means, and accordingly allowed the application by directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. 2,500/- per month to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts, evidence and settled principles of law, inasmuch as the learned Court has recorded 7ndings on unfounded and uncorroborated assumptions while ignoring material evidence available on record. It is contended that the learned Family Court failed to strike a proper balance between the actual income and liabilities of the applicant and the genuine needs of the respondent, and has drawn adverse inferences without appreciating the evidence in its correct perspective. The learned Court further erred in disregarding admitted facts and evidence in favour of the applicant, including admissions made by the respondent and her father (A.W.-2) to the e@ect that the applicant was willing to keep the respondent with him and that it was she and her family who refused to send her back to the matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the applicant does not have su>cient and regular income, particularly keeping in view that work of a Rajmistri is not available on a daily basis, whereas the respondent is a healthy woman capable of 4 earning her livelihood. The learned Court also erred in holding that the respondent had su>cient reason to live separately despite the absence of any police report or contemporaneous complaint substantiating the allegations of dowry demand or cruelty. It is urged that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being quasi-civil in nature are governed by the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and yet the learned Court ignored relevant material and admissions on record, resulting in improper appreciation of evidence and perverse 7ndings, therefore, the impugned order su@ers from material illegality and perversity and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. 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 Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced on record and the material placed before it, has rightly held that the respondent/wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of unlawful demands after marriage and that she was compelled to reside separately from the applicant for su>cient and justi7able reasons, 5 the learned Court has further correctly appreciated that the respondent has no independent source of income to maintain herself, whereas the applicant, being an able-bodied person engaged as a Rajmistri and also having agricultural income, possesses su>cient means but neglected to maintain his legally wedded wife, after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and applying the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Family Court has passed a reasoned and well-considered order dated 28.02.2024 directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- per month, which cannot be said to be excessive. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certi7ed copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan