1 2025:CGHC:54858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1362 of 2025 1. Dipti Mahant W/o Suraj Kumar Mahant Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Puraina, P.S. Banki Mongra, Distt- Korba C.G., Present Address- Vill- Markadih, Chouki Naila, Dist- Janjgir-Champa C.G. 2. Minor Aadhya Mahant D/o Suraj Kumar Mahant Aged About 5 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Dipti Mahant, R/o Village- Puraina, P.S. Banki Mongra, Distt- Korba C.G., Present Address- Vill- Markadih, Chouki Naila, Dist- Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Applicants versus Suraj Kumar Mahant S/o Shri Bandhan Das Mahant Aged About 32 Years R/o Puraina, P.S. Banki Mongra, Distt- Korba C.G., Present Address- Suklakhar, Ward No. 65,chandani Chowk, Suklakhar, P.S. Banki Mongra, Tah. Katghora, Distt- Korba C.G. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.11.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicants being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.129/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicants filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and it is directed to the non- applicant/husband that he pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant No.2/ daughter. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.11 18:38:11 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, stating that applicant No.1 and the non-applicant were married on 23.01.2019 according to Hindu rites at Vill. Dipka, Dist. Korba (C.G.), and a daughter, Kumari Aadhya Mahant, was born in 2020. The applicants have been living separately since 11.01.2024. At the time of marriage, the non-applicant’s family represented that he was undergoing training in Singhali in the mining department and would secure a government job. The applicant’s family gave cash, a motorcycle, household items, and gold-silver ornaments. After a few months of marriage, Applicant No.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry, was prohibited from contacting her parental family, and was not allowed to visit her home. After the birth of the daughter, the in-laws allegedly took Applicant No.1 to Vill. Puraina, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, and on 10.01.2024, falsely declared her mentally ill and admitted her to a mental hospital in Sendari. Upon learning of this, her parental family rescued her on 11.01.2024, and an FIR was lodged on 16.03.2024. It is stated that the non-applicant works as an AC Servicing Technician earning Rs. 35,000/- per month and owns agricultural land yielding about Rs. 3,00,000/- annually. Considering his financial capacity and the daily expenses and education of the minor daughter, the applicants claim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The non-applicant appeared and denied the allegations, except the marriage and birth of the daughter. He denied any dowry demand, claimed misbehavior by the applicant’s parents, and asserted that Applicant No.1 is willfully residing separately. He further submitted that Applicant No.1 earns Rs. 18,000/- per month as a teacher and additionally earns Rs. 50,000–60,000/- from a CGPSC coaching center, arguing she is not entitled to maintenance. He also filed an 3 application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned trial Court framed four issues, including the entitlement of the applicants to maintenance. After reviewing oral and documentary evidence, the court held that Applicant No.1 is the wife and Applicant No.2 is the daughter of the non-applicant, and that the applicant had sufficient reason to live separately. The trial Court concluded that the husband deliberately failed to maintain the applicants and partly allowed the application, awarding Rs. 2,000/- to Applicant No.1 and Rs. 500/- to Applicant No.2, totaling Rs. 2,500/- per month. The court, however, did not properly consider the husband’s income, social status, financial capacity, or the applicants’ expenses, nor did it apply the principle that maintenance can be 25% of the husband’s income. Hence, the applicants have filed the present revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the learned Presiding Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) is illegal, improper, and unsustainable in law to the extent of the quantum of maintenance awarded. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent is a technician earning more than Rs. 35,000/- per month and also has other sources of income. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, maintenance amounting to 25% of the husband’s income is just and proper. The learned trial court also failed to consider the settled law that a wife is entitled to live a life of the same standard as her spouse. The Court overlooked the fact that the applicants are unable to maintain themselves, have no independent source of income, and are fully dependent on the respondent for their livelihood. The learned trial court failed to take into account the respondent’s mens rea/intention, as it is evident from his conduct that he is deliberately attempting to separate the 4 applicants and leave them in hardship, without making any effort to resolve the matter. The Court erred in disregarding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court regarding the fixation of maintenance according to the income and social status of the husband. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements of witnesses, the evidence on record, and the financial condition and entitlement of the applicants (wife and daughter). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Family Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti