1 2025:CGHC:25119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 668 of 2017 Smt. Anju Ghritlahre W/o Mahendra Pal Ghritlahre, Aged About 24 Years R/o S.E. 307, C.S.E.B. Colony Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Basant Bihar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Mahendra Pal Ghritlahre S/o Kaushal Prasad Ghritlahre, Aged About 28 Years R/o N.D. 39, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Smriti Ekka, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17 /06/2025 1. Heard Ms. Smriti Ekka, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dashrath Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.06.23 14:41:40 +0530 2 the respondent to press this revision petition when the case is called out. 2. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in MJC No.131/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the applicant. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the marriage between applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 2.2.2013 according to Hindu rites and customs in Korba. There is no issue out of their wedlock. The applicant filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the time of marriage sufficient dowry was given to non-applicant and his parents but after two months of marriage they subjected the applicant with cruelty and demanded dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and a car. In the year 2013 she became pregnant but she was brutally beaten by non-applicant and ultimately on 31.5.2013 she succumbed to miscarriage. The applicant has lodged F.I.R. against non-applicant for offence punishable u/s 498-A and 377 of I.P.C. Consequently a criminal case was registered and same is still pending. The non-applicant has filed a suit under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. She further pleaded that non- applicant is posted as Junior Engineer in C.G. State Electricity Board and getting Rs.46,888/ per month. She further pleaded that 3 she has no means of income and she is dependent on her father and claimed Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance. Non- applicant filed reply and stated that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient reason. She is residing separately on her own will. 4. The applicant examined herself as AW-1 whereas non-applicant examined himself as NA.W.1 and one Ramkumar Banjare as NA.W.2. 5. The learned Family Court held that offence punishable under section 498-A and 377 of IP.C. is registered against the non- applicant and she was subjected to cruelty with demand of dowry therefore there is sufficient reason for applicant to reside separately. The learned trial court further held that in pay slip of month November 2016 salary of non applicant is Rs.28,000/ and he has liability of his parents and other family members and thus awarded Rs. 7000/- per month as maintenance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has considered only pay slip of non-applicant of month November 2016 whereas applicant had submitted pay slip from April 2015 to January 2016 in which salary of non-applicant was Rs.46,888/. Therefore, the learned family court has committed illegality in relying upon pay slip of November 2016 produced by non-applicant in which there are deductions. He would submit that the applicant is entitled to get 50% of salary of non-applicant for her survival with dignity. He would submit that the applicant has 4 no means of income whereas non-applicant is working as Junior Engineer in CSEB thus non-applicant is able to pay 50% amount of salary as maintenance. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month to the applicant observing that the applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent. The respondent's net monthly salary is approximately Rs.28,000/-, with financial obligations towards his family and legal expenses. The applicant is a graduate, childless, and preparing for employment, with financially well-off parents and maintenance amount of Rs.7,000/- per month is considered a reasonable maintenance amount. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit a certified copy of this 5 order as well as the original records to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and follow up action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri