1 2025:CGHC:34595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 940 of 2023 Krishna Kumar S/o Gangaprasad Aged About 28 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Ghutheli, P.S. Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Smt. Bedbai W/o Krishnakumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ghutheli, P.S. Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2. Piyush Kumar S/o Krishna Kumar 05 Month, Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Bedbai Res. No.1, R/o Village Ghutheli, P.S. Pathariya, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. G.P. Kurre, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Kurre, learned counsel, appearing for the the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, most respectfully prayed in the interest of justice that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and be pleased to set- aside/reduce the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant and ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.22 15:22:46 +0530 2 respondent No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2015 according to the Chudi system. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 lived with the applicant, and respondent No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. The respondent No. 1 leveled a series of allegations, stating that after six months of marriage, the applicant started torturing her for a dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The applicant allegedly assaulted her many times and eventually threw her out of the house. Since then, respondent No. 1 has been living in her parental home along with her son, respondent No. 2. She has no source of income. It was further stated that the applicant is employed at a power plant and earns a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 4. The applicant denied all the above allegations and stated that respondent No. 1 is his second wife, whom he married according to the Chudi Pratha. After the marriage, respondent No. 1 frequently visited her parental home, due to which the applicant expressed doubts regarding the paternity of respondent No. 2. 5. The applicant further stated that prior to marrying respondent No. 1, he was married to Sanjana Bai, and he married respondent No. 1 with the consent of his first wife, Sanjana Bai. 6. The respondents filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming a maintenance amount of Rs. 17,000/- per month (Rs. 10,000/- for respondent No. 1 and Rs. 7,000/- for respondent No. 2) from the applicant. 7. Learned Family Court, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the application and fixed the maintenance at Rs. 2,500/- per month for respondent No. 2 from the date of the application, which is on the higher side. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure A-1) is illegal and suffers from procedural 3 irregularities and perversity, and hence it is liable to be set aside or the maintenance amount is liable to be reduced. He submits that learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the applicant. The applicant is an agricultural labourer, and his income is not sufficient to enable him to pay the maintenance amount to the respondents. He also submits that learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of interim relief filed by the respondent and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of the application. Thereafter, the applicant has been regularly paying Rs. 700/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of the application. He further submits that learned Family Court also allowed the application for grant of final maintenance and passed an order granting Rs. 2,500/- per month to respondent No. 2 from the date of the application. In such a situation, the total maintenance amount will increase from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,200/- per month. Therefore, the interim maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month should be adjusted and cancelled from the date of the application. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondents cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek