1 2025:CGHC:39863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 982 of 2025 1 - Smt. Neha Bhattarcharya W/o Arin Bhhattarcharya Aged About 35 Years R/o No. 48/1, Road No. 08 B, Maithri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shrija Bhattarcharya D/o Arin Bhattarcharya Aged About 7 Years Legal Guardian Smt. Neha Bhattarcharya, R/o No. 48/1, Road No. 08 B, Maithri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Arin Bhattarcharya S/o Kalyan Bhattarcharya Aged About 36 Years R/o Ganesh Enclave, House No. 12, Torwa Dham Mandi, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. … Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04-07-2025 (Annexure A-1) and grant the maintenance amount for the applicant no.1 as prayed in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice.” RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant no.1 and the non- applicant were married through a Humsafar Court Marriage on 21.04.2016, followed by a ceremonial marriage as per Hindu rites on 21.11.2016, and from the wedlock, a daughter was born on 13.08.2018 who is residing with the applicant. It is alleged that at the time of court marriage, the non-applicant’s parents demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry, which was refused by the applicant’s parents, though they provided gold, household articles, and Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as Istridhan. After marriage, the applicant was compelled to do all household chores as domestic help was removed, and she was subjected to continued harassment by the non-applicant and his mother. In 2022, the applicant no.1 allegedly sustained a serious hip injury due to slipping on oil spread on the floor, but was denied proper treatment, compelling her to seek medical help through her parents. It is further alleged that the non- applicant’s family falsely accused her of having an illicit relationship with a neighbour, which tarnished her reputation. Despite repeated efforts, including a proposed religious meeting by her family to reconcile differences, the non-applicant showed no interest. The applicant contends that the non-applicant, employed as an Assistant Professor at J.K. College of Pharmacy, Bilaspur, earning Rs.60,000/- per month, is financially capable and liable to maintain her and the child, seeking Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance. The non-applicant, in reply, denied all allegations, including cruelty, dowry demand, and desertion. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the learned Family Court partly allowed the maintenance application, directing the non-applicant to 3 pay Rs.7,000 per month to the applicant no.1 and Rs.3500/- per month to the applicant no.2. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside, the learned Family Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence regarding the non-applicant’s actual earnings as an Assistant Professor, from which he derives substantial income and belongs to a financially sound family with a high annual gross income, the Court overlooked the applicant’s specific pleadings that, apart from doing small-scale work like providing tiffin services merely for survival, she has no stable source of income and is solely responsible for maintaining her minor daughter, making it extremely difficult to meet daily needs amid rising prices. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to give due weight to the applicant’s testimony narrating the incidents of harassment and her financial dependency and it is the non-applicant alone who is financially capable and legally bound to maintain the applicants, yet the Court awarded an amount that is wholly inadequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the impugned interim maintenance order is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had been residing separately along with the minor daughter and that the non-applicant, being her husband and a person gainfully employed as an Assistant Professor earning a substantial monthly salary, is under a legal obligation to provide for her maintenance. The Court, while duly taking into account the financial status of the non- applicant, the needs of the applicant and the child, and the overall circumstances of the case, exercised its discretion judiciously and partly allowed the maintenance application, awarding an amount to Rs.7,000 per month to the applicant no.1 and Rs.3500/- per month to the applicant no.2, it deemed just, reasonable, and commensurate with the facts and evidence on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan