1 2025:CGHC:25138 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 459 of 2017 Smt. Payal Dewangan W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Dewangan, Aged About 31 Years D/o Punit Kumar Dewangan, R/o Tiranga Chowk, Kushalpur, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Mahendra Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Punaram Dewangan R/o Near Bus Stand, Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may kindly be modified and amount of RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 maintenance may kindly be enhanced in terms of the prayer made in the application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. and amount of maintenance may kindly be given from the date of filing of the application U/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. and in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.02.2011 at Raipur. After some time, the husband and mother-in-law started subjecting the applicant to physical and mental cruelty, and she was assaulted by them due to domestic disputes, which continued until August 2013, when she was ultimately driven out of her matrimonial home. Despite several requests by the applicant and her parents, including efforts by her father to resolve the dispute, the non-applicant did not take her back or provide for her. The applicant later came to know that the non-applicant has kept another woman and is planning to marry her. The non-applicant runs a transportation business involving fruits and travels, earning around Rs. 50,000 per month, whereas the applicant has no source of livelihood and is therefore entitled to maintenance. 4. The applicant has no source of income, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, citing the non-applicant's increased income from his transportation business involving fruits and travels, earning around Rs. 50,000 per month. She sought Rs. 15,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, Raipur partly allowed the application and enhanced the 3 maintenance to Rs. 4000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 18.04.2017, is bad in law, perverse, and erroneous, warranting enhancement of maintenance. He submits that the Family Court failed to appreciate the applicant's living situation and insufficient maintenance. The learned Family Court overlooked the non-applicant's substantial income from his transportation business involving fruits and travels, earning around Rs. 50,000 per month. He further submits that the enhanced maintenance amount is insufficient, considering the applicant's needs and expenses, and should be increased to Rs. 15,000/-. 6. 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 Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), in Misc. Criminal Case No. 144/2014. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant could not prove the non-applicant Mahendra Kumar Dewangan earns Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 1,00,000 per month from fruit or transport business, though he owns a goods vehicle (CG-04 J- 0569) and lives in a joint family engaged in such business. It is also proved that he is physically disabled due to polio. The applicant is 4 his legally wedded wife and is living separately as the non-applicant has kept another woman, Neha, as his wife. Considering his moral duty, it is just to grant the applicant Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance, therefore, order passed by the learned Family Court, Raipur, is just and proper, as such, I do not find any good ground for interference in this revision petition. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan