1 2025:CGHC:28594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 774 of 2025 Vaibhav Mishra S/o Umakant Mishra Aged About 28 Years R/o Shri Vihar Colony, Bangalipara Gali No. 3, Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Prashansha Mishra W/o Vaibhav Mishra Aged About 28 Years R/o Q.No. B/89, Vasant Vihar Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate on behalf of Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kunal Das, learned counsel, on behalf of Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of respondent to press this criminal revision when the matter is called for hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.06.28 16:17:58 +0530 2 “It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, passed in MJC No. 834/2022 by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, be set aside/qaushed , in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief Facts of the case that the applicant and the respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 28.11.2021. On 28.07.2022, the resopondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the present applicant before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, which was registered as MJC No. 834/2022. 5. After receiving the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the present applicant, on 12.12.2023, submitted his reply before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, stating that at that time, he was receiving a salary of Rs. 60,500/- per month from his employer. The present applicant is no longer working with the employer who was paying him a salary of Rs. 60,500/- per month, as he lost his job during the period of recession. Thereafter, the applicant has remained unemployed and has been trying to secure employment with a new company. 6. The applicant has joined a new service with Teleperformance Global Business Private Limited as a Customer Care Executive and is receiving a salary of Rs. 28,722/- per month, as is evident from the salary slip for the month of February 2025, and a salary of Rs. 30,785/- per month, as is evident from the salary slip for the month 3 of March 2025. 7. The learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, vide order dated 08.04.2025, allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent by awarding a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of the passing of the order against the applicant. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Family Court erred in law in ignoring the fact that the present applicant has joined a new service with Teleperformance Global Business Private Limited as a Customer Care Executive and is receiving a salary of Rs. 28,722/- per month, as evident from the salary slip for the month of February 2025, and Rs. 30,785/- per month, as evident from the salary slip for the month of March 2025. He submits that the present applicant orally prayed before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, during the course of hearing, regarding his unemployment, stating that he was no longer working with the employer who was paying him a salary of Rs. 60,500/- per month, as he had lost his job during the period of recession. He also submits that it is pertinent to mention here that, without taking into consideration the present social status of the applicant as well as the salary of Rs. 30,785/- per month received by him, as evidenced by the salary slip for the month of March 2025, which was filed before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur for consideration and necessary adjudication, the learned court below passed the impugned order without considering the same, which is unjust and in violation of the principles of natural 4 justice. He further submits that the applicant is challenging the legality, correctness, and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, which is bad in law. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek