1 2025:CGHC:32634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 452 of 2021 Smt. Mayurakshi W/o Rajeev Shukla Aged About 32 Years R/o C/o Shri Barmeshwarnath Mishra, Ward No. 05, Ganesh Nagar, Bagbahara, Police Station- Bagbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ( Wife), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Rajeev Shukla S/o Shri P.M. Shukla Aged About 36 Years R/o 106/a, Ruva Bandha Sector, Bhilai, Police Station Nevai, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ( Husband), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Case No.43/2019, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed to pay the respondent Rs.8,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an admitted fact that the applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on July 10, 2016, according to Hindu customs. It is also undisputed that the respondent works in the Chhattisgarh Electricity Department in Kanker and commutes between Kanker and Bhilai. The applicant alleged that despite her family spending around Rs. 15,00,000/- on their marriage, the respondent's family treated her poorly. The respondent's family members, including his parents and brother, would harass her over small matters. The applicant hoped that their behavior would improve over time, but it did not. The applicant's brother took her to his place for Raksha Bandhan, but the respondent brought her back to Durg and left her there while he returned to Kanker for work. The respondent took the applicant to his workplace in Kanker only once. Despite doing all the household chores and going to work, the applicant was subjected to mental cruelty and became ill. The applicant claimed that on 21.10.2017, the respondent's family members threw her out of the house in his absence, and she has been living with her parents since then. She has no source of income and depends on her parents. In contrast, the respondent earns Rs. 60,000 per month from his job 3 and additional income from his ancestral land. The applicant sought maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month from the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed his reply denied the allegations as alleged by the applicant. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed to pay monthly maintenance to applicant as mentioned in para 1. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the monthly maintenance awarded to the applicant by the Family Court is on lower side and the same is liable to be increased or enhanced, as per directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Civil Appeal No.5369/2017 “Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy”. He further submits that the monthly maintenance should be provided as per living standards of husband, which was ignored by the Family Court. He also submits that the monthly maintenance awarded to the applicant is considered low given the respondent's status and income. The respondent, working in the Electricity Department, has a pay slip that was presented before the Family Court. According to information obtained under the RTI Act, the respondent's monthly salary is Rs. 53,218, which is likely to have increased over time, with the next increment due in November 2021. Considering these factors, the Family Court should have fixed a more appropriate amount for maintenance, but it failed to do so. The applicant is 4 seeking a revision of the maintenance amount based on the respondent's actual income and financial status. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent 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 impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed to pay the respondent Rs.8,000/- per month to applicant towards maintenance observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the 5 concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil