1 2025:CGHC:25107 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1081 of 2017 Smt. Sangeeta Vishwakarma W/o Anup Vishwakarma, Aged About 29 Years R/o Kududand, P. S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Anup Vishwakarma S/o Guha Ram Vishwakarma, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Dhardae, P. S. Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 501/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the applicant. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent and their marriage is solemnized on 19-04-2007 as per hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the applicant was being harassed by the respondent for demand of dowry. She was being continuously harassed by him on account of not having any issue of them also and ultimately left her to her parents house. This act of the respondent was continued upto 8-9 years and ultimately he has not taken back the applicant with him and she is residing at her parents house. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of monthly maintenance amount to her as the respondent failed to maintain his wife i.e. the applicant and not providing any amount towards maintenance. The respondent is able bodied man and having sufficient source of income whereas the applicant is not having any source of income. The learned Family Court, after recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, on 11-08-2017, has come to the conclusion that the applicant is having sufficient reason to live separately from her husband and has partly allowed the application of the applicant and passed the order that the respondent shall pay the maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court has erred in law and facts both while passing the order of maintenance which is liable to be modified and the maintenance 3 amount is liable to be enhanced. The learned Family Court has erred in not appreciating the present cost of living as also the admission made by the respondent in his deposition that while the applicant was residing with him, he spent Rs. 5,000/- per month upon her. This shows his capability to pay maintenance amount to the applicant and requirement routine expenses of daily needs, against which, very meager amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been awarded by the learned Family Court which is liable to be enhanced by modifying the impugned order. Further, the learned Family Court has erred in shifting the burden to prove the income of the respondent. They should have considered that the burden to prove his income is upon the respondent in which he fails, therefore, a presumption against him should be drawn and claimed amount should have been awarded as the monthly maintenance. Against which the impugned order is passed which is liable to be modified. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent 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 the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has granted maintenance of 4 Rs.2,000/- 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 submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent 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. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil