1 2025:CGHC:38437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 341 of 2022 Kishor Soni, S/o Late Mannalal Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Tarenga, Tahsil Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara, District- Baloda-Bazar- Bhatapara, C.G.Posted At Nelpahari, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Annapurna Soni (Vidhya) W/o Kishore Soni Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Tarenga, Tahsil And P.S. Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. Present Add. Ward No. 15, Bemetara, P.S. And Tahsil And District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Shriram Soni S/o Kishor Soni Aged About 22 Days, Represented Through- Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Annapurna Soni (Vidhya), W/o Kishor Soni, R/o Village- Tarenga. Present Add. Nayapara, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Bemetara AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.247/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is admitted that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent No. 2 was born from their wedlock and is residing with his mother, respondent No. 1. At the time of marriage, the respondent’s parents gave dowry items including a motorcycle, bed, almirah, cooler, fan, dressing table, mixer, utensils, and jewelry worth three to four tolas of gold and two kilograms of silver. However, the applicant and his family members started harassing respondent No. 1, taunting her for bringing insufficient dowry, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. During her pregnancy, respondent No. 1 was also subjected to physical abuse, which weakened her health. When respondent No. 1 was taken to the hospital, the doctor informed her that the baby's health was affected due to the physical abuse. After delivery, respondent No. 1 was sent back to her parental home, where she gave birth to respondent No. 2, and all the expenses were borne by her parents. Respondent No. 1 alleged that on Diwali, when she visited her matrimonial home, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, and was asked to bring more dowry. On May 10, 2019, the applicant and his family 3 members assaulted her and threw her out of the house, demanding dowry. Respondent No. 1 reported the matter to the police, and a case was registered against the applicant and his family members. Respondent No. 1 is residing with her parents and is not capable of maintaining herself due to her poor health. The applicant is a government employee earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and has agricultural income. The respondents have prayed for a maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the non-applicant. Thereafter, the applicant filed his reply and denied the allegations alleged by the respondents. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court failed to consider the applicant's take-home salary of Rs. 21,200 after deductions for family expenses, and therefore, the maintenance amount should be limited to 25% of the salary as per the judgment in Rajnesh Vs Neha. He further submits that the applicant is also carrying a liability of supporting his brother's daughters, who are studying in college, and is paying Rs. 6,000 per month for their expenses, which is a valid reason to reconsider the maintenance amount awarded to the respondent No.1 / wife. Therefore, the applicant is seeking to set aside the order dated February 12, 2021, passed by the Family Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance observing that it is admitted fact that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant, and respondent No. 2 was born from their wedlock, the applicant has subjected respondent No. 1 to cruelty by physically assaulting and abusing her, which constitutes sufficient cause for respondent No. 1 to live separately from the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted any documents regarding his illness. The non-applicant has also not presented any documents to show that the applicant is currently employed, which suggests that the applicant is not working. The applicant is employed as a jail guard and receives a monthly salary. However, the applicant has not submitted any documents to prove land ownership in his name. Additionally, the applicant has not provided documents to show his actual salary, although he has admitted in his reply and evidence that he receives a monthly salary of Rs. 21,200/-. Based on this, the applicant is a person of sufficient means. Therefore, the Family Court concluded 5 that the respondents are entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on higher side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil