1 2025:CGHC:28197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 633 of 2017 Smt. Kanti Bai W/o Shri Ramesh Lal Khare, Aged About 50 Years Caste Balmikee, Occupation Domestic Labor R/o Near Sant Nikari Satsung Bhawan Streat No. 03, Ward No. 17 Emalipara Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ramesh Lal Khare S/o Banniram Khare, Aged About 60 Years Occupation Government Job G. S. Ardali Office I. M. A Prem Nagar Armi Kemp, Dehradun Uttarakhand Pin No. 248007 R/o Rago Bihar Prem Ngar Dehradun Uttarakhand Pin No. 248007, Uttaranchal ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocate For Non-applicant : None present. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sumit Jhawar, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and enhance the maintenance, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant was solemnized approximately 33 years prior to the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 date of filing this application i.e., on 28/09/2015, according to Hindu customs and caste traditions. From their matrimonial relationship, a son named Deepak Kumar, aged 27 years, was born. The applicant and non-applicant are legally married husband and wife. After the marriage, the non-applicant used to lock the applicant in a room, verbally abuse and physically assault her, and deprive her of food and water. He used to threaten her with marrying another woman and warned her that if she ever initiated any legal proceedings or filed a police report against him, he would either pour kerosene on her or poison her food to kill her. Due to this constant terror and violence, the applicant hoped that things might improve, but when no change occurred in his behavior, she left the matrimonial home approximately 20 years before filing this application, i.e., around 28/09/1995, and started living with her parents and brothers or at the homes of other relatives. Due to the poor financial condition of her parental family and her unwillingness to be a burden on others, the applicant began to earn her livelihood through menial jobs such as sweeping, mopping, and dishwashing, enduring extreme hardship. She is now approaching old age, has no support system, and no fixed source of income. On the other hand, the non-applicant is financially well-off, employed in a government job as a G.C. orderly (a government employee) at the Commandant IMA, Premnagar, Army Camp, Dehradun (Uttarakhand), earning a monthly salary of approximately ₹40,000/-. The applicant is his legally wedded wife and also the nominee in his service book. The non-applicant is scheduled to retire 3 around December 2015. After his retirement, he will receive benefits such as gratuity, pension, GPF, DPF, SSBF, commutation, etc. The applicant is entitled to receive half of these retirement benefits and monthly pension. Despite being financially capable, the non-applicant has not paid any maintenance to the applicant to date. According to the applicant, the non-applicant is living with another woman in Premnagar, Dehradun, treating her as his wife and has abandoned the applicant for around 20 years, failing to fulfill any of his responsibilities toward her. Based on the above facts and considering the rising cost of living and daily necessities, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month (half of his salary), and half of the retirement benefits and pension to be deducted from the non-applicant’s account and paid to her. 4. In reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the non- applicant has denied all the allegations made against him and has submitted that he is (or was) a government employee, and it is true that he married with the applicant 33 years ago and they have a son named Deepak Kumar. However, he never physically or mentally harassed or assaulted the applicant. She has been residing at her parents’ house on her own accord. Despite his efforts to bring her back to Dehradun several times, the applicant refused to live with him. She even abandoned their son, Deepak Kumar. When all attempts failed, the non-applicant filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 1993, seeking restitution of conjugal 4 rights. Even though summons were duly served, the applicant never appeared in Court. As a result, an ex parte decree/order was passed on 03.06.1995 directing the applicant to resume matrimonial life with the non-applicant. However, she has failed to comply with this order, while the non-applicant remains ready to comply with it. 5. Previously, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in Bina, M.P., in the year 1995, and was awarded ₹400/- per month as maintenance. However, she had the order canceled herself on 16.11.1995 and refused to accept the maintenance. She also gave an assurance that she would not maintain any future relations with the non-applicant or seek maintenance again. Due to destruction of Court records on 29.10.2010, only the certified copy of the register entry is available, which the non-applicant has submitted with his reply. Now, after 22 years, the applicant has filed a new application under Section 125 CrPC based on false and fabricated facts. The applicant voluntarily abandoned the non-applicant, deprived him of matrimonial life, and even distanced their son from his mother’s love, thereby not fulfilling her duties as a wife or mother. In such circumstances, she is not entitled to any maintenance, salary share, or retirement benefits such as gratuity or pension. 6. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2017, whereby the non-applicant/husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/wife. Hence, this revision petition. 5 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the impugned judgment /order is contrary of the law, facts and circumstances of this case. He further submits that the maintenance granted by the learned Family Court is too meager which is required to be enhanced looking to the earning capacity of the non-applicant. The learned Family Court ought to have taken into consideration that the non- applicant is retired from Indian Military Academy Dehradoon where he was posted as Ardali (peon) who will never receive pension less than 25,000/- Rs. to which he is suppressing through the co- operation from the responsible authority there for such the Hon'ble High Court should suo-moto take cognizance as they are even not disclosing any service document to the applicant. The learned family Court should have granted the maintenance from the date of application instead of from the date of order. He further submits that the learned Family Court also erred in granting very low amount on the part of expenses for filing of the case, it may also be modified/enhanced by this Court. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹3000/- per 6 month to the applicant/wife. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living to which the applicant was accustomed during the subsistence of marriage, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal