1 2025:CGHC:30964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 525 of 2019 Smt.Kalpana Mishra W/o Shivakant Mishra Aged About 29 Years R/o B/40, New Police Line Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Shivakant Mishra S/o Nageshwar Prasad Mishra Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Padra, Police Station Kotwali, Sidhi, Tehsil Gopadbanas, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh., District : Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Nayak For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07.07 .2025 . 1. By way of this revision, the applicant prayed for following relief:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and may kindly be passed the suitable order for enhance the amount of maintenance award passed by the learned below in Misc. Criminal Case No. 851/2017, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was solemnized on 12.05.2011 at Village Sajha. A few days after the marriage, the non-applicant and his family members began harassing the applicant, alleging that she had brought insufficient dowry. They falsely accused her of theft and humiliated her by calling her barren. The non-applicant, under the influence of alcohol, used to verbally abuse and physically assault the applicant, subjecting her to both physical and mental cruelty. Eventually, the non-applicant left the applicant at her parental home, where she has been residing ever since. The applicant has no independent source of income, whereas the non-applicant earns from working as a meter reader, as well as through agriculture and animal husbandry. 3. When the non-applicant totally refused the applicant to keep her as his wife she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and the learned Family Court issued notice to the non-applicant and the non-applicant replied the averment made by the applicant and filed his written statement that he is working as Meter Reader and also he is an agriculturist and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month and he has ample land through which also he is earning a very huge amount in support of the above contention the applicant filed relevant documents relating to land, but the same was not considered by the learned Family Court. 4. The learned Family Court after hearing both the parties and material available on record partly allowed the application and awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/-per month in favour of applicant. 3 Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by learned Family Court is very low as the learned Family Court has not appreciated the income of the non-applicant husband in proper respect. The non-applicant is also having agricultural land but the same was not considered by the learned Family Court. He further submits that the learned Family Court should have been awarded at least 1/3 of the income earned by the non-applicant. The learned Family Court should have seen that in today's era the amount of Rs 3000/- is very low to maintain any person. Thus the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per month to the applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living to which the applicant was accustomed during the subsistence of marriage, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, 4 considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. 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 Kunal