1 2025:CGHC:34599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 792 of 2023 Smt. Sangeeta W/o Narendra Kaiwart, D/o Shyam Lal Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No.54, Sarwamangla Nagar, Chowki-Sarwamangla, At Present Resident of Sarbhoka, Gursiya, Police Station Bango, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Narendra Kaiwart S/o Late Tirith Ram Kaiwart Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.54, Sarwamangla, Chowki Sarwamangla, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. On 17.07.2025, this Court has passed a order and the relevant portion of the said order is quoted here in below: “In compliance of the Court's order dated 10.07.2025, the non-applicant is produced before this Court by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Korba (C.G.). His presence has been duly identified by his counsel, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel, appears on ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.24 11:11:44 +0530 2 behalf of the non-applicant and states that he had tried to give an explanation on behalf of the non-applicant regarding the filing of a false affidavit. However, the said explanation does not appear to be a plausible one. This Court, therefore, intends to criminally prosecute the non- applicant for filing a false affidavit by filing a complaint through the Registrar General before the competent Court. At this stage, the learned counsel for the non- applicant prays that instead of initiating criminal prosecution, a monetary penalty may be imposed upon the non-applicant for his act and conduct for filing a false affidavit before this Court. Considering the said prayer, it is directed that the non-applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the bank account of the applicant/revisionist, Smt. Sangeeta, who is the wife of the non-applicant, by tomorrow. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to provide the necessary bank account details to the non- applicant to facilitate the said deposit. It is made clear that the non-applicant shall also be produced before this Court by the Superintendent of Police, Korba (C.G.), on Monday, i.e., 21.07.2025.” 2. In compliance with the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court, the respondent is produced before this Court by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Korba (C.G.). His presence has been duly identified by his counsel, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Learned counsel for the 3 respondent submits that as a monetary penalty, Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed against the respondent, acting upon such direction, the respondent has already deposited the said amount in the account of the applicant. Presence of the respondent is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent concurs the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been disbursed in the account of the respondent/wife. 4. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 5. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2023 and suitably enhance the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of applicant, in the interest of justice.” 6. Facts of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, stating therein that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, she went to the house of the respondent to perform her matrimonial obligations, where she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent. The respondent was having an illicit relationship with another woman and deprived the applicant of her conjugal rights. The respondent used to beat and assault the applicant, and ultimately, on 4 16.05.2022, the respondent ousted the applicant from the matrimonial home, due to which she is now residing at her parental home. It was further specifically contended by the applicant that she has no source of income, whereas the respondent is working as a General Mazdoor in SECL, Deepka Workshop, earning a monthly salary of Rs. 70,000/-. In spite of this, the respondent has not provided a single penny to the applicant for her livelihood and maintenance, and therefore, she filed the application seeking maintenance. 7. After service of notice, the respondent filed a reply, wherein he denied all the averments except the fact of marriage. 8. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 21.06.2023, allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,500/- per month in favour of the applicant. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 21.06.2023, so far as it awards maintenance on the lower side, is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore is liable to be set aside. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent is working as a General Mazdoor in SECL, Deepka Workshop, and is earning a monthly salary of Rs. 70,000/-. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a housewife and has no source of income. He further submits that learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant requires expenses for food, clothing, essential personal care, and medical treatment, which cannot be fulfilled with an amount of Rs. 6,500/- per month in the present societal scenario. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant, having no source of income, is facing great difficulties in managing her livelihood. He also submits that learned Family Court failed 5 to appreciate that in the present societal scenario, the applicant is unable to sustain herself, and therefore, the maintenance awarded in her favour deserves to be suitably enhanced. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partially allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 13. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek