1 2025:CGHC:11974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 337 of 2025 • Uttam Sahu S/o Late Motilal Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Jangalpara Ward No. 5, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Press Sanwaddata Office Bharwadi Bhojnalaya Nagri Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • Smt. Savita Sahu W/o Uttam Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Jangalpara Ward No. 2, Nagri, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Itu Rani Mukharjee, Advocate For Non-applicant : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. The present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred by the applicant assailing the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Family Court Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 31/2024 whereby an appeal under Section 125 of CrPC filed by the VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.03.29 11:23:33 +0530 2 respondent/wife has been partly allowed. 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the respondent have filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/- per month against the applicant. On 18.05.1997 the applicant had solemnized marriage along with respondent according to Hindu Custom since then the respondent was living with applicant as wife at her matrimonial house. As per allegation made by the respondent is that after some time of the marriage, the applicant and his family members were harassing and torturing in the name of less than dowry and has also committed marpeet with the respondent by using filthy language and the applicant had also demanded dowry with cruel from the respondent, and hence the respondent left at her matrimonial house and residing at her parental house. The respondent has no any source of income to survival and the applicant is working as R.T.I. in the Daily News Channel of India and on account of his work, he obtained amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month income and having agricultural land area 02 acre and he obtained interest amount of Rs. 20,000/- from borrower amount and hence the respondent had filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for granting maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/-per month against the applicant. After issuing the notice to the applicant, the applicant has filed reply and denied the all averment pleaded in the application and hence the applicant has not able to pay any maintenance and liable to be set-aside. the learned 3 Family court passed the order dated 09.01.2025 whereby allowed the maintenance application of the respondent and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- per month. The impugned order dated 09.01.2025 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, hence, this revision on the following grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant (Husband) submits that respondent has left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason and also not made any effort to come back and reside with the applicant. She further submits that learned Family Court has failed to see that the respondent has failed to prove the income of applicant and did not produce any documents with aforesaid regard. She also submits that respondent is working as cleaner in Nagar Panchayat Nagri and on account of her work she has obtained of Rs.5,000/-6,000/- per month, therefore, she is able to manage herself for livelihood, hence the maintenance is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records. 5. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the respondent had filed application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Dhamtari, and the same was partly allowed on 09.01.2025 and granted Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent/Wife as maintenance. 6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that the respondent had leave her 4 matrimonial house and keeping in view that the time elapsed and the increase in inflation after the said order 09.01.2025, because of which she is facing great hardships and is unable to maintain herself, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court has rightly passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, passed by the learned Family Court, Dhamtari, in which there is no need for interference. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali