1 2025:CGHC:34621 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1128 of 2022 Mohd. Bilal Ansari S/o Alimuddin Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Parradand, Mominpura, Ambikapur, P.S. and Tahsil Ambikapur, District - Sarguja ,Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Noorjanha Khatun W/o Mohd Bilal Ansari, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Pratappur, P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Sahiba Ansari D/o Mohd, Bilal Ansari Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Noorjanha Khatun, W/o Mohd. Bilal Ansari, R/o Ward No. 3, Pratappur, P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapur (Surajpur), (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.06/2021, wherein the learned Additional Session Judge has partly PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:01:19 +0530 2 allowed the revision and reduced the maintenance in favour of the respondent No. 1 from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, arising out of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratapur, District- Surajpur. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 16.01.2013, and a daughter, Sahiba Ansari, was born out of their wedlock. Respondent No. 1 alleged cruelty and dowry demands by the applicant's family, leading to her ouster from the matrimonial home on 10.04.2014. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 CrPC, claiming maintenance from the applicant, who is working as a teacher with a salary of Rs. 40,000 per month and has agricultural income. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming that respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home without reason and refused to return despite efforts to bring her back. The learned JMFC Pratappur granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month to the respondent No.1 and 2/ wife and daughter, respectively. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance amount to Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month. The applicant contends that he is suffering from health issues (BP and sugar) and his mother is aged and suffering from paralysis, affecting his ability to pay maintenance. He also alleges that respondent No. 1 is healthy, educated, and has sufficient sources of income to maintain herself. The applicant further claims that respondent No. 1 refused to return to the matrimonial home despite efforts to bring her back, and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the applicant seeks to set aside the maintenance order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant challenges the order dated 01.12.2021, passed by the Additional 3 Sessions Judge, Pratappur, which partly allowed the revision petition instead of fully allowing it. The applicant argues that the revisional Court committed a grave error in law by not considering the facts, documents, and evidence presented. The applicant contends that the respondent No.1/ wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and refused to reside with him, rendering her ineligible for maintenance. The applicant also highlights that he is working as a Shiksha Karmi Grade III, earning approximately Rs. 29,950/- per month, which is primarily spent on his treatment and his mother's medical expenses due to paralysis. The applicant emphasizes that the Additional Sessions Judge acknowledged the applicant's financial constraints but still directed him to pay maintenance. The applicant argues that the maintenance amount is excessive and on the higher side, making it impossible for him to pay. Furthermore, the applicant mentions that he has filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Ambikapur, on the grounds of cruelty by the respondent, which has been allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the revisional 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 parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires according to the well-established principles of law, while determining maintenance, the husband's financial capacity and actual income must be taken into consideration, along with the reasonable expenses required for his own 4 sustenance and the dependent family members he is legally obligated to support. The amount awarded as maintenance should be fair and realistic, avoiding both extremes — it should neither be so excessive as to become oppressive and unbearable for the husband, nor so meager as to push the wife towards destitution. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties herein 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. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti