A High Court will not interfere with a maintenance order passed by a Family Court under Section 125 CrPC if the order is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and the parties' conditions, and is devoid of any patent illegality or infirmity.

NAFR

Digitally signed by PREETI P KR UE ME AT RI I Order on Board KUMARI Date: 2026.02.05 12:13:44 +0530

1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2026, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of dealy of 48 days in filing the instant revision.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 02/2026 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the applicant, the criminal revision is finally heard.

3. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 362/2020, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC filed by the respondent, and ordered the applicant/husband that he has to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the applicant per month.

4. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant and the respondent are legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 26/06/2012 (wrongly mentioned as 26/02/2012 in the impugned order) as per Hindu rites and customs at Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh), without any demand. After about two months of marriage, on 24/08/2012, the respondent voluntarily left the matrimonial home and went to reside at her parental house. Since then, the respondent has not returned to the matrimonial home despite the applicant’s willingness to resume cohabitation. Notwithstanding the respondent’s departure from the matrimonial home, the parties remained in telephonic and mobile communication with each other till the month of February 2020. In the month of May 2020, the respondent instituted proceedings against the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court. The applicant clearly admitted the marital relationship and categorically expressed his readiness and willingness to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home and to discharge all matrimonial obligations. The interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- was granted to the respondent, and after recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned Family Court passed an order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the learned Family Court allowed the maintenance application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent. The applicant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, whereby the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the respondent, has challenged the same before this Hon’ble Court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider the admitted facts of the respondent and the evidence on record regarding the absence of any sufficient cause for the respondent to leave the matrimonial home of the applicant. The learned Family Court, without proper appreciation of the evidence, passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance, which is contrary to law. There are material contradictions in the statements regarding the alleged community meeting. In paragraph 6 of her statement, the respondent claimed that a community meeting was organized to resolve the dispute, wherein her mama, uncle, and fufa Rajendra Soni were present. However, in paragraph 3 of the statement of the respon