1 2025:CGHC:28208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 771 of 2016 Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Chhedi Lal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Chorbhatti, P. S. And Tah. Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus Chhedi Lal S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Jamdi, P. S. Hasoud, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Present Address - North Jhagra Khand, Tah. Mandendragar, P. S. Ledri, District Korea Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 720 of 2016 Chhedilal S/o Babulal Aged About 56 Years Caste Kashyap, R/o Village Jamdi, P.S. Hasaud, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. At Present Residing At North Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, Police Station Ledri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Chhedi Lal Aged About 52 Years Caste Kashyap, At Present Residing At Chorbhatthi, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant :Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate in CRR No.771/2016 For Non-applicant :None. And For Applicant :Mr. Bholanath Nande, Advocate in CRR No.720/2016 For Non-applicant :Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate in CRR No.720/2016 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Kamla Devi. The learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, vide order dated 20.06.2016, granted a monthly maintenance amount of ₹5,000/- to the wife, Smt. Kamla Devi. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Kamla Devi, filed Criminal Revision No. 771/2016, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Chhedi Lal, filed Criminal Revision No. 720/2016, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 3. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Kamla Devi would submit that the learned Family Court partly allowed the 3 application and awarded maintenance amount Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of wife, ignoring the fact that the non-applicant/husband is working as Pum Operator in S.E.C.L. and he getting salary more than Rs. 45,000/- per month. He further submits that the learned Family Court also held that the applicant has proved the salary of Rs. 45,000/- of the husband by oral evidence, but she is entitled for Rs. 5000/- per month. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.5000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably as husband is working said department and getting total Rs.45000/-. 4. Per contra, Mr. Bholanath Nande, learned counsel appearing for husband Chhedilal would submit that the non-applicant/wife left her matrimonial house with her own wish and resided in her parental house without any sufficient reason and the applicant never abuse or beaten the his wife and because of baseless allegation she is not entitle for any maintenance. He further submits that the husband/non-applicant alleged adultery against the wife but it is not proved by sufficient evidence and learned Family Court only on the basis of evidence of wife held that it is proved whereas husband and his son categorically denied said allegation which has not been rebutted by wife. The husband having responsibility of his three sons, two daughter-in-law, his old parents and daughter of his second son Sanjay. The learned Family Court ignore this fact that the husband open saving account in the name of his wife at Central Bank Jhagrakhand where she withdrawn Rs. 57,000/- and without any sufficient reason. He also submits that the wife never attend marriage 4 ceremony of his son and daughter which has been performed by the husband and his parents. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be reduced suitably and amount of maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month payable to wife is reasonable and fair, therefore, his revision deserves to be allowed and revision filed by wife deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 20.06.2016, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 5000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and further ordered to bear Rs. 1000/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Kamla Devi, filed Criminal Revision No. 771/2016, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Chhedi Lal, filed Criminal Revision No. 720/2016, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding 5 recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal