1 2025:CGHC:9272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1093 of 2024 1 - Mrityunjay Sharma (Piyush) S/o Late Devendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Government College Abhanpur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Presernt Address Village Pakariya Jhulan Block Agartala, Higher Secondary School, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Nikita Pathak W/o Mrityunjay Sharma (Piyush) Aged About 25 Years R/o Daldal Shivani, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) (Order on Board) 21.02.2025 The present revision is filed against the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur in Cr.MCC No. 192/2023 whereby the court below has partly allowed the interim maintenance application filed by the non-applicant and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance. 2 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the maintenance amount awarded to the non-applicant is on the higher side and without giving opportunity to the applicant the application for interim maintenance has been allowed. He submits that the non-applicant is living separately from her husband/applicant of her own. Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. Learned court below has committed a grave error by non-appreciating the provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in its true prospect. He further submits that the learned trial court committed grave error by holding that the non-applicant did not have any source of income and the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- awarded to the non- applicant is on the higher side. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the non-applicant supports the impugned order. As regards the quantum of maintenance, learned trial court has appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and has fixed the amount of maintenance to Rs. 20,000/- which is just and proper. He submits that the applicant has not deposited the amount of maintenance of Rs. 4,80,000/- (due) and therefore he may be directed to deposit the same. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court is on the higher side on the ground that she is also earning through her bakery business and also earns through her private job therefore the amount awarded is liable to be modified. 3 6. In view of the above, If she is not willing, her reasons for refusal at the time of the claim will have to be considered and appropriate decision will have to be taken by the Court under second proviso to S.125(3) or 125(4) of the Code. Now comes the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. I find that the respondent has filed application for maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per mensem and looking to the material available on record it appears that the petitioner is employed and earns Rs. 55,000/- as well as he also earns income through his agriculture which is 4-5 acres, and thus having sufficient means to maintain his wife. Therefore, the applicant is liable to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the non-applicant within a period of three months and the current maintenance shall be payable on each successive month. If the above order passed by this Court is not complied with by the applicant, learned trial Court is directed to issue a warrant to arrest to the respondent and ensure the same is executed and he be taken into custody to suffer the imprisonment as per the provisions of Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The applicant is directed under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance @ 25% of the salary of the applicant which comes to Rs.13,750/- (Rupees thirteen thousand Seven hundred fifty only) per month to the non-applicant/wife from the date of filing of the application. If the maintenance so awarded is not paid as ordered, then the salary disbursing authority of the applicant is directed to deduct Rs.13,750/- every month from his salary. Revision is thus partly allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.01 13:13:07 +0530