1 2025:CGHC:41446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1055 of 2024 Smt. Ratna Sahu W/o Ajay Kumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Chandan Awas Rajkishor Nagar Bilaspur P.S. Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Sonaram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Podirachha, P.S. Nawagarh, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 1119 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Sonaram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Podirachha, Police Station - Navagarh, Tahsil - Navagarh, District - Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) Versus Smt. Ratna Sahu W/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Chandan Avas, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Adv. in CRR No.1055/2024. For Non-applicant :Mr. Vivek K. Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.1055/2024. And For Applicant :Mr. Vivek K. Shrivastava, Adv. in CRR No.1119/2024. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 18/08/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Ratna Sahu. The learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, vide order dated 03.09.2024, granted a monthly maintenance amount of ₹4,000/- to the wife, Smt. Ratna Sahu from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Ratna Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1055/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Ajay Kumar Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1119/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the wife Smt. Ratna Sahu would submits that the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by learned Family Court is bad in law perverse, erroneous, illegal, contrary to the evidence available on record, thus modified the order passed by the Family Court and grant the maintenance amount of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court ignored the provision under section 125 of code of criminal procedure. It is most respectfully submitted that the wife is living separately with sufficient reason. The learned Family Court ignored the fact that the husband has filed an application for restitution of conjugal right for living together before the Family Court after service of the notice 3 wife has continue appeared before the family Court janjgir District Janjgir- Champa but husband could appeared number time before the family then family Court has dismissed the applicant u/s 09 of Hindu marriage Act. 1955 it is has proved that the husband was not interested enjoy happy marriage life with the wife. The learned Family Court also ignored that husband has admitted that in his cross examination he was in service and he gets Rs. 45,000/- per month salary. The learned Family Court has passed maintenance amount is very lower side. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.4000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for husband-Ajay Kumar Sahu, would submit that the learned Family Court while assessing quantum of maintenance has failed to take into account all the relevant aspects of the case. The learned Family Court ought to have seen that the wife is living separately of her own free will and there was no cruelty on the part of the husband or his family members. As such, she being living separately without any just and reasonable cause is not entitled for any maintenance. He further submits that the learned Family Court has failed to see the conduct of the wife as also the fact that in her affidavits she simply mentioned "not applicable or nil" and suppressed the actual facts whereas the husband in his affidavit clearly mentioned all the facts with supporting documents. The learned Family Court ought to have seen that the husband has the responsibility of his old ailing parents and siblings. His father is an handicapped person 4 with 44% disability. The husband has to bear all the expenses including medical expenses of her ailing parents and he or his family members never ill-treated or tortured the wife for demand of dowry or for any other reason and in fact, after counseling proceedings in the police station, the wife out of her own free will left her matrimonial home without informing anyone. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the wife is an advocate by profession, she owns vehicle, has two bank accounts; PAN card, ration card and is earning through advocacy whereas the husband has no permanent source of income and the wife has also not filed any such document showing his source of income. He is working as a freelancer electrician and thereby earns a meager amount. On the false complaint of the wife, the husband has already been removed from service. The husband has always been ready and willing to keep her and therefore, he filed application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. In the said proceedings, she has been taking time for filing reply and even after agreeing to live with him during conciliation proceedings till the next date of hearing, subsequently she refused to live with him. Accordingly, the maintenance amount deserves to be set- aside/reduced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 03.09.2024, whereby it was directed the 5 husband to pay Rs. 4000/- per month towards maintenance to wife from the date of passing of the order. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Ratna Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1055/2024, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Ajay Kumar Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 1119/2024, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original records of revisions to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal