1 2025:CGHC:37757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 904 of 2024 Seema Patel W/o Girjashankar Patel Aged About 36 Years R/o Gram Pirda Thana - Tumgaon, Tahsil And District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Girjashankar Patel S/o Kartikeshwar Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Vill. Gram Memhra, Tahsil and Thana - Pithaura, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Vidhi Matlani, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and may further be pleased to suitably modified the impugned order dated RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 04/07/2023 passed by Family Court Mahasamund, Distt.-Mahasamund (C.G.) in M.Cr.Case No.- 27/2022 and enhanced the maintenance amount and may further to direct to respondent to pay maintenance as per claim in application, in the interest and also in the ends of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 06.07.2006, and a daughter, Disha Patel, was born out of the wedlock. Shortly after the marriage, the applicant was allegedly subjected to dowry-related harassment and physical assault by the respondent, his mother, and sister, resulting in injuries for which her father bore the medical expenses. On 02.02.2019, the applicant left the matrimonial home and has since been residing with her parents. The respondent is employed as a Government Teacher at Memra Middle School and earns approximately ₹69,000 per month, whereas the applicant, being a housewife, has no independent source of income. Despite several attempts by the applicant and her family to reconcile, the respondent refused to resume cohabitation. After recording evidence, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 04.07.2023, held that the respondent’s income is ₹69,000 and awarded ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the applicant. Aggrieved by the insufficiency of the awarded amount, which is stated to be disproportionate to the respondent’s income and inadequate for her sustenance, the present revision has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the 3 impugned order is bad in law and facts and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court failed to properly consider that the respondent had subjected the applicant to continuous physical assault, causing ear injuries for which her father bore medical expenses. It also overlooked the fact that the respondent, a government servant earning ₹69,000 per month, is responsible for maintaining not only the applicant but also their 15-year-old daughter. The Court did not correctly evaluate the income of the respondent or appreciate that the applicant has no independent means of livelihood. Despite this, the Family Court arbitrarily awarded only ₹10,000 per month as maintenance, rejecting the remaining claim without proper reasoning. Furthermore, the Court erroneously relied solely on the respondent’s statement while determining income and ignored the documents and evidence produced by the applicant. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, (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, after due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, rightly concluded that the respondent is 4 earning approximately ₹69,000 per month as a Government Teacher and that the applicant, having no independent source of income, is entitled to receive maintenance. The Court correctly assessed the financial capacity of the respondent and the reasonable needs of the applicant and their daughter, and accordingly passed the order dated 04.07.2023 awarding ₹10,000 per month as maintenance. The said order is just, proper, and in accordance with law, as it balances the rights and obligations of both parties while ensuring that the applicant is provided with necessary financial support. 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. 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