1 2025:CGHC:38424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 726 of 2022 Sudha Joshi W/o Sandeep Joshi Aged About 36 Years Caste Brahman, Occupation Nothing, R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 01, Kawardha, Police Station And Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Sandeep Joshi S/o Ganesh Joshi Aged About 45 Years Caste Brahman, Occupation Teacher, R/o Village Udiya Kala, Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition and the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) in Misc. Cri. Case No. 26/2021 may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant, asserting herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking maintenance, stating that their marriage was solemnized on 10.03.2016 as per Hindu rites at village Bhathapara (C.G.). She alleged that, despite dowry given at the time of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent and his family members, and after repeated incidents of assault and being thrown out of her matrimonial home, she lodged criminal complaints under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 323, 34 of the IPC and participated in counselling proceedings before the Family Welfare Committee, where temporary maintenance was fixed but later discontinued. She claimed that the respondent owns agricultural land and also works as an Assistant Teacher earning about Rs.29,825/- per month, yet failed to maintain her. The respondent, on being served, filed reply denying the allegations, stating that he is a widower from an earlier marriage, has a son from the first wedlock, and that the applicant herself was cruel towards his aged parents and son, due to which they suffered distress and his parents eventually died. He further contended that he earns a modest salary, is burdened with loans and educational expenses of his son, and alleged that the applicant herself is educated, employed in a private school and giving tuitions. Upon framing of issues, recording evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of application. 3 Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is perverse, contrary to law and facts on record and liable to be set aside or suitably modified. The learned trial Court erred in granting only Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance despite clear evidence that the respondent is a government employee earning about Rs.26,000/- per month and also possesses agricultural land, while the applicant has no independent source of income. The learned court failed to appreciate that the respondent has sufficient means and no major liabilities, yet has neglected to maintain his legally wedded wife. The finding on quantum of maintenance is based on wrong presumptions and erroneous consideration of facts, warranting enhancement of maintenance to at least Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the court failed to award litigation expenses, which ought to be granted at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per hearing from the date of application till disposal. The Family Court’s failure to consider these aspects renders the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, rightly held the applicant entitled to maintenance, having established her status 4 as the legally wedded wife of the respondent and proved her inability to maintain herself. The Court duly took into account the allegations of cruelty and neglect, the respondent’s admitted employment as an Assistant Teacher, his agricultural holdings, as well as his financial liabilities and obligations towards his son from the previous marriage. Balancing the needs of the applicant with the income and responsibilities of the respondent, the Court reasonably assessed and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of application, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan