1 2025:CGHC:36478 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 684 of 2024 Smt. Ankita Pandey W/o Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Type-3, Ds 203, Kirandul, Police Station Kirandul, Tahsil Bade Bacheli, District- South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Ashish Kumar Pandey S/o Vijay Kumar Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Q. No. 15/a, Street 24, Sector-7, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the non- applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision of the revisionist and may kindly be please to enhance the maintenance KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 amount awarded by order dated 01.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Learned Judge Family Court, Dantewada Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (CG) in Criminal M.J.C. No. 68 / 2023 and direct to the respondent to pay Rs. 40000/- per month as maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant’s and the non-applicant’s was solemnized on 18.02.2022 as per Hindu Marriage Custom at Raipur (C.G.), the applicant came to her in- laws house and started her marital life with the non-applicant but after some time the non-applicant and his family members were started cruelty with the applicant and demanded dowry from her family members, on 01.04.2022, the non-applicant has given a medicine stating it a vitamin tablet, however it was a pill to abort the child of applicant, the non-applicant and his family members were beaten to her and kicked her out from the house, so she has made a police complaint against the non-applicant and his family members, a complaint has been registered under the Domestic Violence Act against the non-applicant and after appreciating the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dantewada (C.G.) has directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant as maintenance under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. 4. Due to this, the applicant is facing severe financial hardship, which gives rise to a valid cause of action to file this present application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., sought maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month from the non-applicant. 3 5. The non-applicant has made reply of the application filed by the applicant on 25.07.2023 in which he has clearly stated that he is getting Rs. 70,000/- to 72000/- per month as salary from his office, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order dated 06.02.2019 and granted 25% of income of the husband in the case of Smt. Rashmi Tiwari Vs Dr. Sanjeev Tiwari WP227 05/2018. 6. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court Dantewada Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) passed the order dated 01.05.2024 whereby, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 15000/- per month and also merged the amount of Rs. 10000/- per month which is obtaining by the applicant in Domestic Violence act. Hence, this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the findings of the learned Family Court is perverse, incorrect, illegal and contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence on record. He further submits that the non-applicant is working on the post of Technology Lead Engineer in Infosys and earning 80,000/- per month and also the father of the non-applicant is working in Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai Distt. Durg (CG) and he has his own house and agricultural land but the learned Court has only granted 15000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, which is very less, this fact has not been considered by the learned Court below and made a legal mistake. He further submits that the non- applicant has filed his reply before the learned Family Court and admitted that his salary is Rs. 70,000/- to 72000/- per month and 4 also he has filed a document Article-10; DW-1 on 08.04.2024 and in this he has admitted that his salary for the month of October 2021; i.e. before marriage was Rs. 77077/- per month but the learned Family Court below has considered the salary of the non-applicant as Rs. 63000/- per month without mentioning any reason for considering the less income of the non-applicant, however the salary of the non-applicant was Rs. 77077/- per month in the year 2021; now it is increased after getting the annual increment, this fact has not been considered by the learned Family Court and made a legal mistake. He further submtis that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in several cases that the maintenance should be 25% of income of the husband but the non-applicant is not paying 25% of his income, which is illegal and need to enhance up to Rs. 25000/- per month. The applicant has no source of income and she is totally dependent upon the income of her husband but the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance to the applicant which is very less to survive her, this fact has not been considered The learned Family Court has merged the maintenance amount of Rs. 10000/- received by the applicant under Domestic Violence act, it means the learned Family Court has awarded only 5000/- per month maintenance to her in her application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., which is illegal and arbitrary. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 8. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the concerned Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence 5 adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 10. 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 ₹15000/- 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. 11. 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. 15000/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not 6 committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. 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