1 2025:CGHC:48737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1173 of 2025 Sapna W/o Neelkamal Kurre Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sambalpur, Police Station Nandgaht, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. Present Address- R/o Village Kachharipara, Behind Anganbadi Bemetara. Tahsil And District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Neelkamal S/o Hari Kishan Kurre Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sambalpur, Police Station Nandghat, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.09.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: A.“It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of Criminal M.J.C. No. 38/2023 from the Family Court, Bemetara. B. It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set-aside or suitably 2 modify/enhance the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Bemetara, in so far as it grants a maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month in Criminal M.J.C. No. 38/2023. C. It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions for the immediate recovery of the arrears of interim maintenance, which the respondent has failed to pay. D. It is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 25.08.2021. Due to the physical and mental cruelty, harassment for dowry and subsequent abandonment by the non-applicant, the applicant was forced to live separately at her parental home. On 18.01.2023, the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973 before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) seeking a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 6,000/-, which was registered as Cr.M.J.C. No.38/2023 and also filed interim maintenance application. During the pendency of the main application, the learned Family Court vide order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) had directed the non-applicant to pay 3 an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant from the date of the application until the final settlement of the case. The non-applicant has deliberately failed to comply with the said interim order and has not paid a single penny towards the interim maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, thereby demonstrating a deliberate defiance of judicial directives and causing immense financial distress to the applicant. The applicant's previous application for maintenance was rejected by the Family Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-2). However, a Co- oridante Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 3.03.2025, in CRR No. 770 of 2023 (Annexure P-3), set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Family Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while remanding the case, found that a separate civil suit filed by the non-applicant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, had been decided on 6.03.2025, and it was held that there was "sufficient cause" for the applicant to live separately from her husband. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also ruled that the civil Court decree has a "binding effect" on the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Despite the binding effect of the civil decree and the non-applicant's failure to appear in the proceedings, the learned Family Court, vide its impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-4), awarded a meager final maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month, which is even less than the interim maintenance granted earlier in the same case. The court acknowledged the non-applicant as a "24-year-old healthy young man and can support his family," but stated there 4 was a lack of documentary evidence regarding the family's assets and income. The applicant has filed this revision petition to challenge the inadequacy of the final maintenance amount awarded, which is grossly insufficient and contrary to established legal principles, as well as being lower than the interim order, especially in light of the Non-applicant's blatant non-compliance 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the binding principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 by ignoring the unrebutted oral testimony of the applicant regarding the Non-applicant’s substantial family assets, namely a brick kiln, a highway vehicle and large irrigated agricultural land, as corroborated by documentary evidence (Annexures P-5 & P-6). Even if the properties stand in the father’s name, this Hon’ble Court in Smt. Laxmi Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2010 (3) CGLJ 172) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Anjali Devi, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 658, have held that potential earnings and benefits from joint/ancestral property cannot be ignored. Similarly, in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3397 and Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 145, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that maintenance must reflect the husband’s status and allow the wife to live in the same standard as enjoyed in the matrimonial home, and not be reduced to a pittance. The Family Court further committed irregularity by granting final maintenance of only Rs.1,000/-, which is not only less than the interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- but also grossly insufficient to meet even basic 5 sustenance, thereby defeating the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The non-applicant’s deliberate non-compliance with the interim order and the binding civil court decree dated 06.03.2025 in Civil Suit No.106 A/2022, recognizing sufficient cause for the applicant to reside separately, were also ignored. In these circumstances, and in view of the settled position of law that a “healthy young man” from a family with lucrative business and extensive landholdings cannot shirk responsibility, the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and calls for interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 25.08.2021. The material placed on record clearly reveals that due to matrimonial discord, allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry, the applicant started residing separately at her parental home. It is further evident that the applicant had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/-, wherein the Family Court, by order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The admitted position is that the non- applicant failed to comply with the said interim order. It also appears that the applicant’s earlier application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Family Court on 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), but the same was set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRR No.770/2023 vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure 6 P-3) and the matter was remanded, with a clear finding that the civil court’s decree dated 06.03.2025 declaring “sufficient cause” for the applicant to live separately has binding effect on the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Despite this, the Family Court, by the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure P-4), awarded Rs.1,000/- per month as final maintenance, which is even less than the interim maintenance granted earlier, while simultaneously observing that the non-applicant is a healthy young man capable of earning. 6. However, it is settled law that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to provide bare subsistence to the wife so as to prevent destitution and vagrancy and the quantum depends upon cogent proof of income, resources, or earning capacity of the husband. In the present case, except the oral assertions, no reliable documentary evidence of income or ownership of assets of the non- applicant has been brought on record. The Family Court has already exercised its discretion after appreciating the oral testimony and available material. Mere non-payment of interim maintenance may amount to disobedience of order but cannot be a ground, by itself, to enhance the quantum in revision when no substantive evidence of higher income is proved. 7. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 7 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal