1 2025:CGHC:45011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1094 of 2025 Smt. Sunita Sao W/o Jitendra Sao Aged About 24 Years Presently Residing At Village Hadapthara, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Jitendra Sao S/o Deenbandhu Sao Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Devri, P.S. And Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, Link Court Saraipali (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.68/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant, towards maintenance. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that in this case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 30.03.2023 according to Hindu rituals and customs. Thus, the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. At the time of marriage, the applicant’s parents and family members gave various gifts including a TV, fridge, cooler, etc., as well as 22 grams of gold jewelry, 400 grams of silver jewelry, a Pulsar motorcycle, and other household items. After the marriage, when the applicant arrived at her in-laws' house, the respondent and his parents were not satisfied with the items brought by the applicant and began taunting her, saying that the items and the gold and silver given were too little. They started harassing her and even stopped providing her with timely meals. The respondent and his parents began to torture the applicant, and the respondent also started physically assaulting her. Upon informing her parents of this situation over the phone, her father attempted to counsel the respondent and his family. The applicant further stated that she stayed at her in-laws’ house for about one and a half months, after which she came to her maternal home for the first time as per social customs and stayed there. During this period, the local community organization "Sahu Sangh Baroli" issued a notice on 29.06.2023 calling the applicant and her family to appear on 01.07.2023 at village Garhfuljhar for a resolution meeting in response to an application submitted by the respondent. 3 3. In that meeting, the applicant stated that she was harassed by the respondent and his family for dowry. However, the community members, after receiving money from the respondent, began pressuring for a divorce settlement. In the same meeting, the respondent refused to take the applicant back with him. Since then, the applicant has been residing at her parental home. The respondent has abandoned the applicant without any just or sufficient cause and has not made any provision for her maintenance. The applicant has also stated in her petition that the respondent is a healthy individual and the only child of his parents. His father owns 2.51 hectares of agricultural land in village Deori, from which the respondent earns an annual income of approximately Rs.10 lakhs through farming. Additionally, there is 2 hectares of land in village Garhfuljhar on which four shops have been constructed and rented out, generating a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. Moreover, the respondent's grandmother owns 2.2945 hectares of agricultural land in village Kumir, Tehsil Jharband, District Bargarh, from which there is an additional annual income of around Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, the respondent is financially capable of providing maintenance to the applicant. Finally, the applicant has requested that the respondent be ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand rupees) per month for her maintenance, medical treatment, and other expenses. Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence 4 adduced by the parties has granted monthly maintenance to the applicant as mentioned in para 1 of the order. Hence, the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 68/2023 is perverse and unsustainable in law. The Court failed to appreciate the applicant’s statements and the respondent’s financial status, despite clear evidence (Exhibits P-1 to P-3) showing that the respondent earns substantial income from agricultural land and rental shops. Being the only son in the family, with no other legal heir to share the income, the respondent is fully capable of paying higher maintenance. The meager amount of Rs.3,000/- granted as maintenance is grossly inadequate considering the present cost of living. Therefore, the applicant respectfully seeks enhancement of the maintenance amount to Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to applicant, towards maintenance observing that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Although the applicant alleged harassment for dowry no formal complaint or evidence was submitted to substantiate 5 this claim. However, it was established that the respondent and his family have socially abandoned the applicant based on a community decision, which has no legal validity, which the Family Court found reasonable and sufficient grounds to live separately. Moreover, the respondent, being physically and mentally fit, is capable of earning and maintaining his wife. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to maintenance and after considering the social and economical status of both the parties and current price index granted monthly maintenance to the applicant / wife as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil