1 2025:CGHC:36479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 594 of 2024 Smt. Rashmi Tiwari W/o Shri Dilip Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar Thakur Para Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tasil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address Through Nand Kumar Gautam S/o Kuber Singh, Jyoti Bihar A-34, Khamtarai P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Dilip Tiwari S/o Late Premchand Tiwari Aged About 44 Years R/o 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Thakur Para Mangla, P.S. Civil Line, Tasil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Office Address Police Photographer, P.S. Civil Line, Tasil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Office Address Police Photographer, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enhance/modify the award amount of maintenance the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure R-1), passed by the learned 2nd Additional, Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur (C.G), in Misc Criminal Case No. 74/2023, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that that her marriage with the non- applicant was solemnized on 11.06.2009 at Akaltara as per Hindu customs and rituals. No child was born out of their wedlock. The non-applicant has habitually insulted and humiliated the applicant. On one occasion, when the applicant’s brother was admitted to Apollo Hospital for a kidney transplant and she went to see him, the non-applicant began physically assaulting her with fists, questioning why she had gone. Throughout the past 10–15 years, the non- applicant has physically assaulted the applicant on numerous occasions and thrown her out of the house. There has been no improvement in his behavior and for the past three and a half years, there has been no cohabitation between them. The applicant has no source of income, while the non-applicant is employed as a constable photographer in the Home Department of the Government of Chhattisgarh, posted at Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur, earning a monthly salary of ₹46,391/-. The non-applicant has abandoned the applicant without any just cause. Therefore, Due to lack of financial hardship, the applicant prays before the learned Family Court concerned that she be awarded a monthly maintenance amount of ₹30,000/- from the non-applicant. 3 4. In his reply, the non-applicant has admitted that he is employed in the Police Department; however, he has denied all other allegations. He has stated that the non-applicant is his distant relative and that no marriage ever took place between them. He further claims that the applicant is employed as a teacher and earns a monthly income of ₹40,000/-. Therefore, he requests that the revision be dismissed. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available in record, heard both the parties, the learned Family Court concerned has passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, whereby directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceedings. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is not a well reasoned order and the order is baseless and against the law. The Family Court concerned has totally ignored that the applicant has no source of income and the Non-applicant is a Police photographer and has an income of Rs. 46,391/- per month. He further submits that the learned Family Court has ignored the fact that in this rising inflation sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month is very little to survive for any person especially in case of living standard of the Husband is very high and it is well settled law that at the time of granting the maintenance the court would keep in the mind the living standard of the parties at the time of residing together, and after the separation both would live as same standard, in this case the income the of the non applicant is prove as Rs.46391/- per month even thereafter granting of 4 Rs.5,000/- per month is bad in law and against the natural justice. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. 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 ₹5000/- 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, 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. 5 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 5000/- 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal