1 2025:CGHC:27398 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 909 of 2018 Smt. Suhata Sinha W/o Baliram Sinha Aged About 47 Years R/o- Village- Bholapur, Tahsil- Chhuria, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Baliram Sinha S/o Late Anand Singh Occupation- Headmaster, Govt. Middle School Village- Pandetola, Tahsil- Chhuria, District- Rajnandgaon R/o- Village- Bholapur, Tahsil- Chhuria, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Pranoti Das, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and enhance the maintenance already awarded by the learned Family Court by order dated 25.06.2018, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that The present case arises from a maintenance dispute between legally wedded spouses, who have been married for over 35 years and have two daughters settled in their matrimonial homes. The applicant (wife) alleged that due to the absence of a male child, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the non-applicant (husband) and his family. She further claimed that the non-applicant married another woman, Rahi Bai Sinha, and forcefully ousted her from the matrimonial home. Despite being employed as a Headmaster with a monthly salary of ₹60,000/-, the non-applicant allegedly refused to provide maintenance, compelling her to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In his reply, the non-applicant denied the allegations, stating that the applicant was living separately without any valid reason and thus not entitled to maintenance. However, by order dated 25.06.2018, the learned Family Court awarded ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount, the applicant has preferred this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to the facts, law, and circumstances of the case and suffers from serious infirmities. The Court has awarded a meager sum of ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, which is grossly insufficient to sustain a dignified living in the present socio- 3 economic conditions. The learned Court failed to properly consider that the non-applicant is a government employee drawing a monthly salary of ₹60,000/-, in addition to earning income from agricultural land. As a legally wedded wife, the applicant is entitled to a standard of living comparable to that of the non-applicant. The Court overlooked the rising cost of living, including expenses for essential daily needs and personal care items, which makes the awarded amount inadequate. Therefore, the applicant is legally and justifiably entitled to enhanced maintenance, and the Family Court ought to have granted a more reasonable and just amount in her favor. Hence, the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside or suitably modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its judicial discretion by awarding ₹5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and has been deserted without just cause after 35 years of marriage. The Court correctly noted that the applicant, despite being ousted from the matrimonial home and allegedly subjected to cruelty due to the 4 absence of a male child, has no independent source of income for her sustenance. The non-applicant, on the other hand, is a salaried Headmaster earning ₹60,000/- per month and is financially capable of maintaining his wife. Considering the social and economic circumstances, the duration of marriage, and the responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the maintenance granted is fair, just, and legally sound. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and upholds the spirit of social justice intended under the provision. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record of this case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan