1 2025:CGHC:40154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 973 of 2023 Smt. Preeti Vishwakarma W/o Shri Ramji Vishwakarma, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Sainath Colony, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Kota, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Ramchandra Vishwakarma S/o H.L. Vishwakarma, Aged About 36 Years R/o. House No. 1059, Daganiya Shanti Vihar Colony, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Another Address 27, N.C.C. Battalion, In Front Of Suyash Hospital, Kota, P.S. Saraswati, Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant Along with CRR No. 110 of 2023 Ramchandra Vishwakarma S/o H.L. Vishwakarma Aged About 38 Years R/o H. No. 1059, Daganiya, Shanti Vihar Colony, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant Versus Smt. Priti Vishwakarma W/o Ramchandra Vishwakarma Aged About 33 Years C/o Ramji Vishwakarma, Sainath Colony, PS Saraswatinagar, Kota, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 In CRR No. 973/2023 For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate In CRR No. 110/2023 For Applicant : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 / 08 /20 25 1. Since the aforesaid two criminal revisions have been 9led against the same order, they are being decided of by this common order. 2. In the present case, an application for maintenance was 9led on behalf of the wife, Smt. Preeti Vishwakarma. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur district- Raipur, vide order dated 20.12.2022, granted a monthly maintenance amount of total Rs. 12000/- to the wife, Smt. Preeti Vishwakarma. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. The wife, Smt. Preeti Vishwakarma, 9led Criminal Revision No. 973/2023, 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, Ramchandra Vishwakarma, 9led Criminal Revision No. 110/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his 9nancial capacity, and therefore, the same deserves to be reduced/ set-aside. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for husband Ramchandra Vishwakarma, would submit that the impugned order is bad in law and facts, as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, failed to appreciate that a wife living separately without su?cient cause is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the respondent/wife has voluntarily deserted the applicant without any cogent reason, despite repeated e@orts by the applicant to bring her back to the matrimonial home, and is thus not entitled to any amount of maintenance, much less the exorbitant sum of ₹12,000/- per month awarded by the trial court. It was contended that the applicant has already placed on record his salary slip and home loan statement showing a monthly EMI of ₹14,701/-, along with medical records evidencing his obligation to maintain his widowed mother, a senior citizen su@ering from various ailments. Without properly appreciating these facts and the applicant’s 9nancial liabilities, the learned court below hastily passed the impugned order, ignoring that a substantial portion of his income is spent on loan repayment and family responsibilities. In these circumstances, the maintenance awarded is wholly unjusti9ed and liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for wife would submit that the impugned order is erroneous as the trial court, despite considering the evidence and documents produced, failed to appreciate that the respondent, having adequate means of income from service and other sources and no other dependents, is under a moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife, who is unable to sustain 4 herself. It was pointed out that DW-2, the respondent’s mother, admitted in her testimony that she does not wish to keep any relationship with the applicant and would not allow her back to the matrimonial home, thereby entitling the applicant to enhanced maintenance. The learned court below overlooked the applicant’s helpless condition, the hardships faced in pursuing maintenance proceedings, and the respondent’s persistent non-compliance with earlier maintenance orders, which clearly shows his unwillingness to support her. The quantum of maintenance 9xed is on the lower side, particularly in view of the current economic situation and rising cost of living, and there is ample proof on record of the respondent’s substantial income. The applicant therefore submits that she is entitled to an enhancement of maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month to enable her to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that of the respondent. 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 9led 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 20.12.2022, whereby it was directed the husband to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month towards maintenance to wife. Being aggrieved by the said order, both parties preferred criminal revision petitions. 5 The wife, Smt. Preeti Vishwakarma, 9led Criminal Revision No. 973/2023, 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, Ramchandra Vishwakarma, 9led Criminal Revision No. 110/2023, asserting that the amount awarded is excessive and beyond his 9nancial 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 9nding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- 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 as well as original records be sent to learned Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan