1 2025:CGHC:27714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 452 of 2019 Anjani Devi W/o Bhunuram Aged About 52 Years R/o 11C, Road No. 06, Secor-02, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Bhunuram S/o Dukhit Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o 3D, Risali Sector, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Office Address- Vaiyttk No. 894841, Operator Ammonium Salfet Plant, Bhilai Ispat Plant, Bhilai. 490001, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press the present criminal revision when the case is called out of hearing. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.27 10:42:46 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to order as to set-aside impugned order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure A-1), and enhance the amount Rs. 15,000/- per month from date of application in favour of revisioner payable by respondent, by allowing this revision, in the ends of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized approximately 40 years ago according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the applicant and the respondent resided together, and as a result of their conjugal relationship, two sons and one daughter were born. Subsequently, the respondent developed a relationship with a woman named Uma and began subjecting the applicant to mental and physical harassment. The respondent started living with the said Uma, keeping her as his mistress. When the applicant objected to this, she was forcibly driven out of the matrimonial home along with her children. The applicant struggled greatly to support her sons and daughter and began to fight for her legal rights against the respondent. 5. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg. During its pendency, an interim maintenance order of Rs. 5,000/- per month was passed in her favor. The respondent paid the interim maintenance for some time 3 but later stopped both paying the maintenance and appearing before the Court. Consequently, the learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the respondent and recorded the statement of the applicant. 6. On 08.03.2019, a final order was passed, awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, payable by the respondent from the date of the order, although the application had been filed on 05.06.2013. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Family Court, is illegal, arbitrary, and passed without application of judicial mind, and therefore deserves to be quashed. The learned Family Court failed to consider the needs of the applicant, who is about 58 years old, suffering from multiple ailments, and entitled to live a life of dignity equal to the status of the respondent, who is legally bound to maintain her. He submits that learned Family Court awarded a meager amount towards the maintenance of the applicnat. In the present circumstances, a minimum of Rs. 10,000/- is required for her food and clothing, and considering her age, at least Rs. 5,000/- is additionally required for her medical treatment and medicines. He also submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent deliberately chose not to appear before the Court to counter the allegations made by the applicant. The respondent is a retired executive from Bhilai Steel Plant and has received Rs. 75,00,000/- as retiral dues. Apart from this, he has substantial 4 savings and agricultural lands. Therefore, he is financially capable and legally bound to pay a minimum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of the application. He further submits that learned Family Court did not take into account the relevant and reliable evidence submitted by the applicant regarding the income and financial status of the respondent while passing the impugned order. Furthermore, the Court failed to assess the actual and reasonable maintenance needs of the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the applicant cannot be said to be shockingly on lower side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and followup action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek