1 2025:CGHC:29200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1430 of 2019 Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal W/o Vinod Agrawal Aged About 25 Years R/o C/o Ashok Agrawal, Street No. 04, Ward No. 42 Azad Chowk, Kasaridih, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Vinod Agarwal S/o Late Vimlesh Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Rishab City Prime Flat No. 102, Potiyakala, Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this criminal revision when the matter is called of hearing today. 3. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.02 10:41:01 +0530 2 call for entire records from the court below in MJC No. 164/2018 from First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 23.08.2019 (Annexure A1) and enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 15000/- per months. 3. Any other relief this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 4. Facts of the case are that the marriage of the applicant and respondent was solemnized on 05.06.2015 according to Hindu customs and rites. The applicant was residing with the respondent and his retired mother in the matrimonial house, and soon after the marriage, both the respondent and his mother started taunting the applicant for bringing less dowry and for not bringing a car, and they demanded an additional amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The applicant stayed in the matrimonial house for about 17-18 months. The respondent is also in a relationship with his colleague, namely Harini Murlidhar, and is continuously in contact with her through WhatsApp. From their chats, it can be verified that they are in a relationship. The applicant complained about the respondent’s behavior to her mother-in-law, but despite explaining the situation to her, the mother-in-law would shout at the applicant. The respondent used to threaten to kill the applicant and was forcing her to agree to a divorce. The respondent also attempted to oust the applicant from the matrimonial house at midnight. After narrating the entire incident to her relatives, the applicant made a written complaint on 3 07.01.2017 at the Women Cell, Durg. 5. Thereafter, counseling was conducted, during which the respondent refused to allow the applicant to return to the matrimonial house. Consequently, the Women Cell lodged an FIR against the respondent and his mother under Sections 498A/34 of IPC, and a charge sheet was filed. At present, the applicant is residing with her parents. The applicant has no source of income and is a housewife, whereas the respondent is working at Axis Bank and is drawing a salary of Rs. 65,000/- per month. The mother of the respondent was a government employee and is currently receiving a pension of Rs. 24,000/- per month. The respondent is neither suffering from any ailment nor has any loan liabilities, yet he is not willing to pay maintenance to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the learned Family Court directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance to the applicant at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 7. The above-mentioned application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, and after hearing both sides and considering the evidence and exhibits adduced, the learned Court Family Court decided the application vide order dated 23.08.2019 by directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month, and the said order is under challenge in the instant revision. 4 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order (ANNEXURE A/1) is not in accordance with the evidence on record, is bad in law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. The learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the applicant has no source of income, and in the present scenario of rising expenses, it is very difficult for a person to survive on only Rs. 7,000/- per month. He submits that learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent, only to avoid the liability of paying maintenance, has quit his job, which should not have been considered while granting maintenance to the wife. He further submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly calculated the maintenance as Rs. 7,000/-, whereas the maintenance should be sufficient to match the status and lifestyle of the respondent, who owns a car and scooter and is living a lavish lifestyle. The learned Family Court has overlooked the fact that the non-applicant has no one else to maintain, as his mother is receiving a pension of Rs. 24,000/- per month, which has not been denied by the respondent. He also submits that the learned Family Court, while granting interim maintenance, considered all relevant aspects and awarded Rs. 10,000/- per month, but at the time of granting final maintenance, it was reduced to Rs. 7,000/-, which is not justified. The applicant had adjusted her expenses and future plans with the anticipation that the maintenance would be at least Rs. 10,000/- per month, but now, with the reduction to Rs. 7,000/-, it will cause financial hardship to the applicant, which is unjustified for a lady who has been ousted from her matrimonial house. The learned Family Court ought to 5 have considered that the applicant is not earning, and merely because she is educated, her right to proper maintenance cannot be curtailed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs.7000/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 11. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek