1 2025:CGHC:31308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 483 of 2021 1. Smt. Naina Ambade W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Ambade Aged About 30 Years Present Resident Address Of Duplex 21, Nira Enclave, Parthavi Nagar, Hirapur Road, Mohababazar, Tahsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Kumari Arvika Ambade D/o Shri Devendra Kumar Ambade Aged About 2 Years And 9 Moths, Present Resident Address Of Duplex 21, Nira Enclave, Parthavi Nagar, Hirapur Road, Mohababazar, Tahsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Applicants versus Shri Devendra Kumar Ambade S/o Late Shri Anantram Ambade Aged About 38 Years R/o Misiya Bada, Ward No. 07, Dongargarh, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.09 12:02:12 +0530 2 M.J.C. No.573/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the respondent/husband that he pay of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the applicant No.2/daughter (total Rs. 8,000/-), as maintenance amount from the date of order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that applicant No. 1 and the respondent married on 27.02.2015, in Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), according to Hindu rites and customs under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. After the marriage, they lived happily, and a daughter, Kumari Arvika, was born on 25.09.2018. However, two years after the marriage, the respondent and his family members' behavior changed, and they began demanding dowry, subjecting the applicant to physical and mental torture for not bringing a car. Due to this cruelty, the applicant left the respondent's house with her minor daughter, as she had no source of income. During the proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, multiple opportunities for counseling and settlement were given, but all efforts failed. The trial Court decided in favor of the applicant and the minor on three key questions but granted a maintenance amount that is considered low, given the respondent's living status and income. Hence, this revision petition seeks enhancement of the maintenance amount. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has granted very nominal amount of maintenance and same is liable to be increase or enhanced. Further, the living standards of husband is very high and looking to his standard of living the amount of maintenance would be granted to be applicants. He further submits the respondent / husband was Railway employee of Central Govt. and his 3 salary near about 80,000/- per month has been received. After cruelty committed by respondent /husband and harassed with marpit the wife is living separately with minors, further with this effect the written complaint is also made to concerned Police Station. Further, the respondent have sufficient means to maintain wife and minor. The order impugned suffers from material illegality and deserves to be set aside/quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires that applicant No.1/wife has stated in her judicial statement and application that the respondent works in the Railway Department and receives a salary of Rs 80,000/- per month. The above statements of the applicant No.1 are not supported by any document. The applicant No.1 has not submitted any document regarding income. In such a situation, it cannot be assumed that his monthly income is Rs 80,000/- per month. In such a situation, Rs. 6000/- would be sufficient for applicant No. 01/wife for a proper living and maintenance and Rs. 2,000/- per month for applicant No.2/daughter. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order 4 passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti