1 2025:CGHC:38480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1010 of 2023 Smt. Kiran Gupta W/o Pankaj Gupta Aged About 49 Years Occupation - Homemaker, R/o Basantpur, Ward No. 46, Near Ganjmandi, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Pankaj Gupta S/o Late Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta Occupation - Business, R/o Jyoti Kirana Stores Simbhora Dam Road, Morshi District - Amravati (Maharashtra) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.08.2025 1. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 90 days. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Misc. Cri. Case No. 161 / 2019 may kindly be modified, in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the non-applicant on 18.06.2017 at Rajnandgaon. After solemnization of marriage, the non-applicant did not allow the applicant to live a comfortable life at the matrimonial house and has started misbehaving with the applicant. The applicant was harassed by the non-applicant for demand of dowry. Even on number of occasions, the applicant was assaulted by the non-applicant. The applicant tried her level best to adjust at the matrimonial house. The applicant was forced to leave her matrimonial house just after few months of marriage i.e., on 09.11.2017 and it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant did not only forced her to leave the house but also forced her to travel alone from Badnera to Rajnandgaon that to with only two clothes. The applicant was asked to bring an amount to the tune of Rs.1,49,000/- from her parents, since the applicant has shown her inability to pay the aforesaid amount, as a result of which the applicant was thrown out from the matrimonial house by the non-applicant. It is further alleged that prior to throwing the applicant out of matrimonial house, she was also beaten up. Since the applicant were not in a position to sustain their livelihood, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of 3 Criminal Procedure before the concerned Family Court for grant of monthly maintenance. 5. In the aforesaid application, the notices were issued to the non- applicant and he had marked his appearance before the learned Family Court. The averment made by the applicant were denied by the non-applicant. After considering the pleadings and hearing both parties, the learned Family Court, upon due appreciation of the facts and evidence placed on record, partly allowed the application of the applicant and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the mandate of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is that the statement of the wife that she is unable to maintain herself would be enough and it would be for the husband to prove otherwise. Even in catena of cases, it has been upheld by the court of law that if it is specifically averred by the claimant wife that she has no means for her survival, it would be sufficient and adequate plea. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is a legally wedded wife, it was a mandatory obligation for the non-applicant to provide maintenance to the applicant and it is a settled principle of law that once a person has capacity to run, he cannot escape his liability to maintain under this provision. Sufficient means under this Section does not signify only visible means such as real property or definite employment. If a person is healthy and able body, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife. He further submits 4 that the learned Family Court, without application of mind, without appreciating the facts narrated by the applicant herein, without appreciating the grounds raised by them, in a very mechanical manner has granted meager amount of maintenance that to in this world of high prices. The non-applicant lives in a very posh colony and has immovable property in his name from which he is able to earn upto Rs. 1,00,000/- yearly. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. 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 by both parties, had partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned had awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1,500/- per 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, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court 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 5 the given circumstances. The impugned order reflects a just and fair assessment made by the Family Court upon appreciation of the material available on record. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the 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. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal