1 2025:CGHC:40425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 243 of 2024 Smt. Sharda Dighraskar W/o Kishore Kumar Dighraskar Aged About 33 Years Caste- Suryavanshi, R/o Village Jagmahant, Police Station And Tehsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently R/o Amruva, Police Station Saragaon, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Kishore Kumar Dighraskar S/o Late Netram Dighraskar Aged About 39 Years Caste Suryavanshi, Occupation Job At Army, Originally Resident Of Village Jagmahant, Police Station And Tehsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Presently Voluntary Retired From Service) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roshan Sharma holding the brief of Mr. Sahilendra Dubey. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Janjgir, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in M.J.C. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.597/2018, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent are governed by Hindu Law and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals on 11.05.2014; it is an admitted fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with an interim application for maintenance, which was registered as MJC No. 158/2018 (CIS Registration No. 597/2018) before the learned Family Court, and the respondent filed his reply thereto along with the reply to the interim application; after hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, by order dated 29.09.2023, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicant against the respondent. At the time of marriage, the respondent was serving in the army, but he took voluntary retirement before completing the 22-year service bond, having served only 17 years, and now receives approximately Rs. 30,000/- per month as pension; therefore, the applicant contends that she is entitled to at least Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent has admitted that paddy belonging to his mother was sold by him for about Rs. 35,000/- (copies of B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni and Khasra Paanchsala are 3 filed collectively as Annexure-A/2). Further, his mother, Smt. Ratanbai, purchased a residential plot bearing Khasra No. 2243/6, admeasuring 0.08 acre (0.034 hectare), for Rs. 9,09,500/-, and is thus capable of maintaining herself; nevertheless, the respondent has claimed that he spends Rs. 15,000/- per month on his mother (copy of sale deed and affidavit collectively filed as Annexure-A/3). The respondent also moved an application before the Maha Sabha Suryavanshi Samaj seeking divorce from the applicant, pursuant to which a notice was issued by the Vice-President of the said Sabha to the applicant’s father (copy of notice filed as Annexure-A/4). In para 16 of his cross-examination, the respondent admitted that since the applicant did not appear before the Maha Sabha Suryavanshi Samaj, both were ostracized. It is therefore contended that the respondent, having voluntarily retired and being financially capable, is in a position to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, whereby only Rs. 6,000/- per month has been awarded as maintenance to the applicant, is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- per month; the respondent has himself admitted in his affidavit dated 06.03.2023 filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) that he is receiving Rs. 30,700/- per month, thereby establishing his 4 financial capacity to pay enhanced maintenance; further, the respondent has failed to pay the entire maintenance amount awarded under the interim order and certain arrears still remain payable to the applicant and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including that the applicant is unable to maintain herself while the applicant is fully capable of maintaining his wife, the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 12,000/- per month. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance observing that the applicant successfully proved that she is living separately from the respondent for sufficient reason. Furthermore, it has been proved that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the applicant, who is unable to earn for her own sustenance and he has failed to make any provision for her 5 maintenance. Therefore, the Family Court after considering the social and economical status of both the parties and current price index concluded that applicant / wife is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil