1 2025:CGHC:334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 932 of 2024 1 - Aman Gandharla S/o Krishna Lal Gandharia Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Papanpal Nayapara, Naimed, Police Station Toynar, Tahsil And Toynar, Tahsil And District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Gandharla W/o Aman Gandharla Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Papanjali Nayapara, Naimed Police Station Toynar, Tahsil And District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Shri Dhaneshwar Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 18/06/2024, whereby learned Family Court, South Bastar Dentewada (C.G.) has directed the applicant herein to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.01.20 11:05:56 +0530 2 the non-applicant from the date of application i.e. from 08/01/2024 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance, stating that the marriage of applicant and non- applicant was performed on 25.04.2016 according to social rites and customs after marriage, she went to the house of applicant for performing matrimonial obligations. After sometime of marriage, the applicant used to subject her to cruelty on account of demand of dowry and ultimately the applicant has expelled her from the matrimonial house due to which she is living in here parental house. The applicant is not giving any maintenance to non-applicant towards her maintenance, whereas the applicant is having sufficient source of income, though the non-applicant has no source of income, therefore the non-applicants filed an application for grant of maintenance. Learned Family Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, vide the impugned order the application of the wife for granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Family Court after considering all the circumstances of the case, especially keeping in view the economic and social status of both the parties, it seems appropriate and just that the applicant given a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant and application under Section 125 of CrPC is allowed in part. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is an unemployed person and has no permanent source of income, non-applicant/wife is living in adultery and she is not legally married 3 wife of the applicant, the maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month granted by the learned Family Court to the wife is a huge amount. Hence, it is prayed that the revision may be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has supported for granting maintenance of Rs.4000/- to the wife by the learned Family Court. 6. From perusal of the material available including the evidence led before the Family Court and after considering all the circumstances of the case, especially keeping in view the economic and social status of both the parties, sufficient for fulfilling domestic needs, treatment and other livelihood requirement and in view of the current price index, I find that the trial Court has not committed any error on law to grant maintenance of Rs.4000/- to the wife i.e. from 08/01/2024. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed. Sd/-d/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde