1 2025:CGHC:36501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1017 of 2023 1 - Smt. Aanchal Sahu @ Fekan W/o Tikamchand Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhurkunda, Infront Of Primary School, P.S. Pachpedi, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Minor Pragya Sahu D/o Tikamchand Sahu Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Aanchal Sahu @ Fekan, R/o Village Bhurkunda, Infront Of Primary School, P.S. Pachpedi, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Tikamchand Sahu S/o Shri Gendlal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kewantadih, Bhutha, P.S. Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and modify the impugned order to the extent of enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 15,000/- to applicant No. 01 and Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant No. 02 total maintenance of Rs. 18,000/-, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicants filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that the marriage between Applicant No. 1 and the Non-Applicant was solemnized on 05.06.2015 as per Hindu rites at Village Bhurkunda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), and out of the said wedlock a daughter, Kumari Pragya Sahu, was born in 2016. It was alleged that the applicant wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, was assaulted on 09.09.2017, and was forcibly left at her parental home, where she has since been residing. The Non-Applicant husband, employed as RM at Axis Bank, Mungeli, earning approximately ₹32,000 per month besides income from agricultural land amounting to around ₹1,00,000 per month, has failed to maintain them. The applicant wife also stated that she is willing to resume cohabitation, but the husband has filed proceedings under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which resulted in a decree of divorce by the Family Court on 09.08.2023, presently under challenge in appeal. In reply, the husband admitted the marriage and birth of the child but denied allegations of cruelty, asserting that the wife left without sufficient cause and is earning from a stitching centre, while he has limited income and responsibilities towards his 3 parents. Upon considering the pleadings and evidence, the Family Court held that the wife had sufficient cause to live separately and that the husband failed to maintain her and their daughter, thereby awarding maintenance of ₹1,500 to the wife and ₹1,000 to the daughter per month. Aggrieved by the quantum, the applicants have preferred the present revision contending that the award is inadequate considering the husband’s income, social status, and the principle that 25% of the husband’s income should be granted as maintenance. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), to the extent of quantum of maintenance, is illegal, improper and unsustainable in law as the learned Court below failed to properly appreciate the income and financial capacity of the non-applicant, whose salary was more than ₹32,000/- per month in the year 2018 and has reasonably increased over time, besides his agricultural income; failed to consider the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the wife is entitled to live a standard of life similar to that of her husband and that ordinarily 25% of the husband’s net income constitutes just and proper maintenance; failed to note that the applicants have no independent source of income and are fully dependent upon the non-applicant for livelihood; failed to appreciate the conduct and intention (mens rea) of the non-applicant in abandoning the applicants and refusing to resume cohabitation; and erred in ignoring binding precedents and material evidence on 4 record relating to the social status, entitlement and financial condition of the parties, thereby awarding an unjustly low amount of maintenance. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be modified by suitably enhancing the maintenance in favour of the applicants in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after duly appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly held that the applicant no.1/wife had sufficient cause to live separately from the non- applicant/husband and that the non-applicant had failed in his statutory duty to maintain both his wife and minor daughter. The Court took into consideration the admitted fact of marriage and the birth of the child, as well as the evidence regarding cruelty and dowry harassment, and concluded that the wife’s separation was justified. It further observed that despite being employed as RM in Axis Bank and also having agricultural income, the non-applicant had neglected to provide maintenance, thereby necessitating judicial intervention. Consequently, the Court, in a reasoned and well-founded order dated 09.08.2023, awarded monthly maintenance of ₹1,500 to the wife and ₹1,000 to the daughter, which is just, proper, and in consonance with the settled principles of law governing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan