1 2025:CGHC:32943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1262 of 2022 Shivkumar S/o Santosh Dewangan Aged About 28 Years By Caste Kosta R/o Jhoolkadam Church Gali, Sakti, Post Office Tahsil And District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt Subhadra Dewangan W/o Shri Shivkumar Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o Jhoolkadam Church Gali Post Office Tahsil And Now District Sakti At Present R/o Dukaluram Dewangan, R/o Village Bhilaigarh, Thana And Tahsil Bhilaigarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to call for the record of the courts below and the order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Balodabazar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 200/21 may kindly be please to set aside in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that non-applicant/wife filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance from the applicant on the inter alia ground that their marriage was solemnized and thereafter, the applicant and his family member used to harass and commits cruelty with her on demand of dowry and there is regular dispute between them, hence because of harassment and cruelty, it is difficult for the non-applicant to live the applicant that with averment, she filed an application for grant of maintenance. 4. The applicant filed the reply to the application and denied the contentions of the non-applicant. He submits that the applicant was ready to keep the non-applicant and for that an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act had also been filed, but the non- applicant is not turning. He further submits that without any reason, the non-applicant is living separately and she is well educated and older than the applicant, hence she is not entitle for maintenance. 5. Learned Family Court after taking evidence from both the parties decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2022, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred, in allowing the application for grant of maintenance to non-applicant, when she had not submitted any affidavit declaring her assets and source of income. He further submits that the learned Family Court had totally misinterpret, the evidence of applicant. He also submits that the learned Family Court has passed the 3 maintenance amount in higher side without considering the evidence of monthly income of the applicant. Therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Family Court has held that the non-applicant has succeeded in proving her application. Therefore, keeping in view the social status of both the parties, monthly income of the applicant and other expenses, the Family Court has granted Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant as maintenance, which cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal