1 2025:CGHC:34917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1086 of 2022 Kalpana Singh Tomar W/o Arun Singh Tomar Aged About 32 Years Caste Kshatriya (Rajput) R/o House Of Sunil Kumar Mehen, House No. 1006, Near Lakshmanban Talaab, Korba, Ward No. 11, Thana City Kotwali, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Arun Singh Tomar S/o Sri Siddhapal Singh Tomar Aged About 40 Years Caste Kshatriya (Rajput) Chemist, C/o Narmada Drinks Private Limited, Bilaspur, Sirgitti, Sector- B, Industrial Area, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravikar patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Family Court, Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.107/2019, whereby the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant and granted maintenance of Rs.4500/- to applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 CrPC stating inter alia that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.04.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The revisionist alleged in the application that she was ill treated by respondent and thereafter she was deserted by the respondent. The revisionist is suffering from various diseases like thyroid, swelling in liver as well as cholesterol and sugar. The revisionist is unable to maintain herself and respondent is earning Rs. 45,000/-, thus she may granted Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent in his written statement stated that revisionist herself left the matrimonial house and she is working lady therefore she is not entitled to get the maintenance. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the respondent deserted the revisionist, the revisionist is unable to maintain herself thus granted Rs. 4500/- per month as a maintenance to revisionist. Since Rs. 4500/- is very meagre amount hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned is bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case thus liable to be modified and enhanced. The learned Family Court failed to see that the respondent has not adduced any witness, he himself did not enter 3 into witness box thus all the material and assertion made by the revisionist with regard to the payment of the respondent must be believed and would have granted Rs. 20,000/- per month. The respondent is earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per month and also earning Rs. 5,00,000/- from agriculture as the respondent is having huge parcel of land thus the learned Family court ought to have awarded Rs.20,000/- per month. Further, there is no means of livelihood for the revisionist and Rs.4500/- per month is very meagre amount. The revisionist is residing in a rental house, she has to pay rent in monthly basis and she has to maintain herself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors 2015)6 SCC 325 has held that Section 125 of CrPC was conceived to alleviate the agony, anguish, and financial suffering of a woman who has left her matrimonial home for the reasons set forth in the provision so that the Court can make appropriate arrangements for her and her children if they are with her. The term "sustenance" does not always imply that one is living an animal's existence. She has the legal right to conduct her life in the same manner as she would have in her husband's home. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 4 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has granted maintenance of Rs.4500/- to applicant observing that the respondent deserted the applicant and the applicant is unable to maintain herself and further considering the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, the same cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal