1 2025:CGHC:41447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1377 of 2024 1 - Smt. Shivlata Sahu D/o Shri Sonaram W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village- Podi, Police Station And Tahsil- Navagarh, Distt- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Urshita Sahu D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 7 Years Through- Mother Smt. Shivlata Sahu, Caste Teli, R/o Village- Podi, Police Station And Tahsil- Navagarh, Distt- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Mahendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kesho Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Misda, Police Station And Tahsil - Navagarh, Disttt. Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Non-applicant. 2. By way of this revision, the applicants have prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and modifying the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Criminal Case No.76/2022, enhance the amount of maintenance suitably, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of applicant No.1 with the non-applicant was solemnized on 24.6.2016 as per Hindu customs and rituals and from their wedlock applicant No.2 was born on 1.4.2017. The applicants filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC with the averments that after one month of marriage when applicant No.1 went to her parental home, her in-laws made a telephonic call to her and told that she has to come back only with car and Rani necklace in dowry or else she need not come back. When she reached her matrimonial home, her in-laws did not let her enter the home saying that she has not brought car and Rani necklace. They even beat and abused her filthily languages. On 1.4.2017, when she delivered a female child/applicant No.2, her in- laws told that they do not want female child, branded her Tonhi, sinister and Kulakshini (ill-mannered) and started harassing and torturing her physically as well as mentally. When she again conceived in February, 2018, then the non-applicant forcibly got her abortion and he always used to say of sending applicant No.2 to orphanage. It was further averred by the applicants that on 20.3.2020, when the in-laws of applicant No.1 tried to kill her and ousted her from the matrimonial home for contracting second marriage of the non-applicant, she is residing at her parental home 3 since then. She stated that the non-applicant is a government employee working in RPF, Railway Department and drawing handsome salary of Rs.50,000/- per month. Apart from this, he has 08 acres of agricultural land from which he earns Rs.2.50 lacs per annum whereas applicant No.1 has no source of income and therefore, she prayed that the applicant No.1 be granted monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and applicant No.2 of Rs. 10,000/- from the non-applicant. 4. The non-applicant in his written statement denied all the adverse averments and pleaded that at the time of marriage he was posted in Nagpur and two months after marriage on the insistence of applicant No.1 he took her to Nagpur where they lived together from July, 2016 to July, 2017 and thereafter, on being transferred to Anuppur, lived together there from July, 2017 to March, 2020. She had studied only upto B.Sc. (First Year) which was got completed by the non- applicant. While living together, applicant No.1 used to exert pressure on the non-applicant for living separately from his parents and on his refusal, she would leave for her parental home without informing anyone. In this regard, social meetings were also convened. On 26.9.2021, the non-applicant made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Janjgir regarding threat being given by father and brothers of applicant No.1 of falsely implicating the non- applicant and his family members and of life. No demand of dowry was ever raised by the non-applicant or his family members. As regards income, applicant No.1 makes bakery items in bulk at home and supplies the same to the retailers and she is also working as a 4 ladies tailor, and thus, earning Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month whereas the non-applicant has to pay installment of Rs. 16,134/- per month. She is an able-bodied person and living separately without any just and reasonable cause, therefore, the application u/s 125 of CrPC is liable to be rejected. 5. The learned Family Court considering the pleadings of the respective parties, by the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 partly allowed the application of the applicants granted maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively in favour of the applicants from the date of order only. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the non-applicant in his affidavit very cleverly mentioned his basic salary as Rs.28,400/- and DA as Rs. 10,792/- and stated in cross-examination that he gets only Rs.38,000/- per month. Though on 14.8.2024 applicant No.1 had moved an application for issuance of direction to the non- applicant for producing his salary slip to ascertain his actual salary, however, the said application was never decided and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed based on the said income mentioned in the affidavit of the non-applicant, which was stated to be of the year 2022, resulting in wrong assessment of maintenance amount. The applicant No.1 had also moved an application under Right to Information Act before the concerned authority for providing salary details of the non-applicant but no such information was provided to her on the ground of it being personal information. In appeal against the said order, the appellate authority provided the specific information sought for by her and thus furnished the pay 5 matrix of the Constables from 2014 to 2024. However, all these documents were not taken into consideration by the learned Family Court while determining maintenance. The learned Family Court ought to have seen that the applicants have no independent source of income, applicant No.2 is a school going girl and as such, the amount awarded is very meager. The learned Family Court ought to have seen that the non-applicant is having sufficient source of income and is capable of maintaining the applicants properly. Thus, looking to the financial status of the non-applicant, hike in prices and the present day standard of living, the maintenance amount awarded in favour of each of the applicants by learned Family Court is very much on the lower side and needs to be enhanced suitably The learned Family Court has also fallen into error by granting maintenance amount from the date of order whereas in catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the maintenance is to be granted to the spouse from the date of application and not from the date of order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and 6 evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants and has granted maintenance of Rs. 3500/-per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1000/- per month to the applicant No.2/daughter (total 4500/- per month as maintenance). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal