1 / 4 2025:CGHC:4687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1178 of 2024 1 - Shri Ashish Gupta S/o Nand Kishor Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Ram Manohar Lohia Colony, P.S. Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o 210 Jolo Eclairs Chocolate Factory B.T.M. First Stage Banglore, Karnatak. ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Kiran Gupta W/o Shri Ashish Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Ram Manohar Lohia Colony, Raipur, P.S. Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Jarhadih Lamgaon, P.S. And Tehsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 05/07/2024 passed by the Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja in Miscelleneous Criminal Case No.32/2022 wherein the family Court has granted Rs.8500/- per month maintenance to the respondent. 2. The brief facts of this case are that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the non-applicant/wife ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.30 16:41:42 +0530 2 / 4 stating that her marriage was solemnized on 11.12.2019, thereafter after one year of the marriage, her in-laws started ill treatment with her on demand of dowry. Thereafter because of the torture meted out by the applicant and his family members, she went along with the applicant to banglore where she resided for about one month where she came to know that the applicant is having relation with some other girl even prior to their marriage. Thereafter she was sent back to Raipur on 29.03.2021 and she left her matrimonial house on 19.04.2021 and started living at her maternal home. She further averred that she has no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself therefore she may be awarded maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the applicant whose annual income is about Rs. 6,00,000/-. 3. The applicant appeared before the learned family court and filed his written statement denying the contention raised by the non applicant stating therein that the non applicant left her without any rhyme or reason and she herself did not want to live along with the applicant and his family members therefore she was taken to banglore but there also her behavior did not change and she was sent back to her maternal home with all dignity and security, however, she lodged a false case u/s 498 A and also under Domestic Violence Act against the whole family. The applicant stated that he earns about Rs. 33,582/- per month, and the non applicant wife is able to maintain herself, therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the applicaton for grant of maintenance. Learned Family Court allowed the application filed by the 3 / 4 non applicant by order dated 05.07.2024 and granted maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8500/- per month to the non applicant. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is already paying Rs.8000/- as interim maintenance to the wife as awarded under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, therefore, awarding Rs.8500/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be too much. He would next contend that the applicant is ready and willing to live with the non- applicant but the non-applicant herself has left the matrimonial house without there being any valid reason or sufficient cause. He would next contend that the applicant is having responsibility of his brother, who is undergoing treatment of Cancer. Therefore, he would submit that the instant revision may be allowed and the order dated 05/07/2024 may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the family Court if well merited, which do not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Perusal of the order would show that the Family Court has granted Rs.8500/- per month maintenance to the wife and the applicant has stated that he is getting a salary of Rs.33,582/- and the order further purports that if the wife is getting maintenance under any other provision then this amount would be adjusted in that amount meaning thereby the applicant has to pay only Rs.8500/- towards maintenance and further taking into consideration the price index which is prevailing in the society and hike in value of the commodities, the maintenance granted 4 / 4 by the family Court cannot be stated to be wrong and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu