2026:CGHC:7149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1102 of 2024 Harishankar Yadav S/o Parmanand Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Pondi Bhantha, Near Pond, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-

Champa ( C.G.).

... Applicant(s)

Digitally AKHILESH signed by KUMAR AKHILESH DEWANGANKUMAR DEWANGAN versus Smt. Durga Yadav W/o Harishankar Yadav Aged About 23 Years Caste - Yadav R/o Of Pondi Bhantha, Near Pond Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa ( C.G.). At Present R/o Village- Korai Police Station Bankimongra, District- Korba ( C.G.).

... Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s) : Dr. Kumaresh Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09 /02/2026

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District – Korba (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.07/2022, 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.4,500/- per month to respondent, towards maintenance.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 17.05.2019 in accordance with social rites and rituals at Village Korai, Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.). After marriage, the respondent started residing at the matrimonial home of the applicant at Village Pondibhatha, Police Station Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Soon after marriage, the conduct of the respondent towards the applicant and his family members became rude and cruel, and she avoided performing household duties. On 10.08.2019, the respondent left the matrimonial home and went to her parental house. Despite the applicant visiting her parental home on 12.08.2019 to bring her back, the respondent refused to return and resume cohabitation. Thereafter, on 23.02.2022, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an application for interim maintenance, supported by an affidavit, alleging demand of dowry and cruelty against the applicant. The applicant filed his reply on 24.07.2023 denying all such allegations. As the respondent continued to refuse to live with the applicant, he filed Civil Suit No. 139-A/2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was allowed by order dated 06.04.2023; however, despite the decree, the respondent did not join the applicant at the matrimonial home. The learned Family Court, after framing issues and appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the applicant was working as a responsible person in a medical store and, relying upon documents produced by the respondent, partly allowed the maintenance application. The Court fixed the maintenance amount at Rs.4,500/- giving rise to the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated

06.04.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.139-A/2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed by the learned Family Court, which itself establishes that the respondent was not willing to reside with the applicant. Despite the said decree, the respondent deliberately refused to resume cohabitation without any just or reasonable cause. He further submits that the evidence on record clearly shows that the applicant made sincere efforts to bring the respondent back to the matrimonial home, including visiting her parental house on 12.08.2019, but she refused to return and continued to live separately of her own volition. Since the respondent has been residing separately without sufficient cause, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself is not maintainable and the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the applicant.