1 2025:CGHC:41311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 600 of 2024 Smt. Tarannum Parvin W/o Mustkim Ali Aged About 30 Years D/o Yusuf Ali, R/o Karbala Chowk P.S. City Kotwali Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh............(Revisioner) ... Applicant(s) versus Mustkim Ali S/o Late Ishmail Ali Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Motor Cycle Mechanic, Lucky Servicing Center Near Hanuman Temple, Beside Antulal Petrol Pump Tilak Nagar Chantapara Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.................(Non Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.324/2020, whereby the learned Family Court AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized on 18.01.2020 at Bilaspur, whereafter the applicant started residing with the respondent at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is alleged that soon after marriage, the respondent and his family members subjected the applicant to cruelty, pressurizing her for dowry and using filthy language; further, during her pregnancy, due to such harassment, she suffered a miscarriage, after which she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Since then, the applicant has been residing separately without any source of income, in a rented house paying Rs.3,000/- per month. On account of the respondent’s sufficient means, earning about Rs.40,000/- per month from business, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the learned Family Court seeking Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance along with interim maintenance. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed a detailed reply denying all allegations, stating that he never demanded dowry, that the applicant left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason, and that the alleged income is exaggerated and false. After considering the pleadings and documents on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application, directing 3 the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court committed a gross error in awarding only Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance despite the respondent’s sufficient income from business and other sources. The applicant, who has no source of livelihood, is residing in a rented house paying Rs.3,000/- per month, which fact was supported by documents but ignored by the Court. Being the legally wedded wife of the respondent and having been driven out of her matrimonial home due to dowry demands and cruelty, she was compelled to live separately. In the present circumstances, Rs.15,000/- per month would be a just and reasonable amount for her maintenance. The learned Court failed to appreciate that her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. disclosed sufficient cause of action and that the respondent, having a government job, is financially capable of maintaining her. Instead, the Court partly allowed the application without properly considering the evidence, while the respondent sought to take undue advantage by producing selective financial records. The order thus suffers from legal and factual infirmities warranting interference. 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 4 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 the Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance observing that since the respondent failed to provide any proposal to maintain the applicant, and could not prove his allegations against her with any evidence, it is established that the applicant has sufficient reason to live separately from the respondent. Furthermore, as there is no oral or documentary evidence to show that the applicant has any source of income, the Family Court concluded that she is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, 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. 5 9. 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 Akhil