1 2025:CGHC:28205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 8 of 2017 Vishnu S/o Chudamani Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kurda Nagrada, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu W/o Vishnu Sahu, Aged About 23 Years At Present Resident Sendur, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharoda, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) CRR No. 372 of 2017 Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu W/o Vishnu Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o At Present Village Sundur, Police Station Malkharoda, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---Applicant(s) Versus Vishnu S/o Chudamani Sahu, Aged About 25 Years Occupation Agriculture And Businessman, R/o Village Kurda Nagarda, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant :Mr. Kamlesh K. Pandey, Adv. in CRR No.8/2017 For Non-applicant :Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv. in CRR No. 8/2017 And For Applicant :Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Adv. in CRR No.372/2017 For Non-applicant :Mr. Kamlesh K. Pandey, Adv. in CRR No.372/2017 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been filed against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was filed on behalf of the wife, Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu. The learned Family Court, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Now Sakti), vide order dated 08.12.2016, granted a monthly maintenance amount of ₹3,000/- to the wife, Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 372/2017, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Vishnu, filed Criminal Revision No. 08/2017, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for wife Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu would submits that the order of learned Family Court is based on conjecture and surmises. He further submits that the wife has proved income of her husband is Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, the learned Family Court concerned partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance amount Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of wife, ignoring the fact that the husband is earning person and he earns of about 20,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has passed 3 maintenance amount is very lower side. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the fact and as such, amount of maintenance i.e. total Rs.3000/- is shockingly low looking to the cost of living, standard of living, cost of price index, therefore, same be enhanced suitably. 4. Per contra, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for husband Vishnu, would submit that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the husband is ready and willing to keep his wife with him, but she left the matrimonial house and living separately, without there being any reasonable cause. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the wife has not adduced any evidence in respect of income of the husband. The learned Family Court has awarded disproportionate maintenance in favour of the wife. He further submits that his wife is doing stitching and tailoring work and from where she received sufficient amount and she is able to maintain herself. He also submits that the wife is an uncontrolled mind lady and she is living separately without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be set-aside/reduced suitably. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application was filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the wife before the learned Family Court concerned for grant of maintenance and after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court passed the order dated 08.12.2016, whereby it was directed the 4 husband to pay Rs. 3000/- per month towards maintenance to wife and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Mamta @ Pushpa Sahu, filed Criminal Revision No. 372/2017, contending that the amount awarded is inadequate, unjust, and does not meet the rising cost of living; hence, it deserves to be enhanced suitably. On the other hand, the husband, Vishnu, filed Criminal Revision No. 08/2017, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his financial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/set-aside. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revisions and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month to the wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, both the revisions deserve to and are accordingly dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal