1 2025:CGHC:40134 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1259 of 2023 Smt. Mamta Sahu W/o Pravin Bagh Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 22, Subhash Nagar Mahasamund, Tehsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Pravin Bagh S/o Kapoorchand Bagh Aged About 28 Years R/o Titlagarh Beside Silbhatapara Station, PS Titlagarh, District Balangir (Orrisa) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Mohammed Waquar Rizvi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 7led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and Impugned Order Dated 25.10.2023, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G) passed in Miscellaneous Criminal ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:48 +0530 2 Case No. 63/2023, in the case of "Smt. Mamta Sahu V/s. Pravin Bagh" may kindly be modi4ed and the Application 4led by Applicant for grant of maintenance U/s. 125 of CrPC may kindly be allowed and the applicant/wife be provided/given su7cient amount of maintenance from the date of 4ling the application, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant and respondent are wife and husband, and their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2022 at Village and District Mahasamund (C.G.). The wife/applicant 7led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on the allegation that soon after the marriage, when she reached her matrimonial home, she was subjected to mental torture on the ground that she had not brought jewellery as per wishes of her in-laws. Her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, and sister-in-law continuously taunted her, saying that she had not brought as much gold as her elder sister-in-law (bhabhi) had brought. When this was informed to her parents, they advised her to maintain cordial relations, hoping that the situation would normalize with time. However, soon thereafter, her in-laws again demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- and gold jewellery. She was subjected to such severe mental and physical torture that at one point she contemplated committing suicide. On 14.06.2022, when she fell ill, her in-laws took her to her parents’ house and reiterated their demand for Rs. 1,50,000/- and gold. When her parents expressed their inability to ful7ll the demand, they left the applicant at her parental home and returned to Odisha. On 12.01.2023, the applicant approached the Parivar Paramarsh Kendra and 7led a complaint against her husband and in-laws. Notices were issued to them, but none of them appeared, which compelled her to 7le the instant application, as her husband had 3 deserted her without any rhyme or reason, and she is unable to maintain herself. 4. The applicant 7led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself, whereas her husband is running a grocery and general store and earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. She prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 5. The respondent/husband appeared before the learned Family Court and objected to the application, contending that due to social customs she was residing at her parental home. He stated that he has been regularly providing grocery and daily-use items to her and that she was left at her parents’ house temporarily. He further submitted that he is willing to reside with her and is ready for restitution of conjugal rights. He claimed that he is illiterate, works in shops, and earns only ₹4,000/- to ₹5,000/- per month. He also alleged that since the applicant had grown up with all amenities, she was unable to adjust in her matrimonial home and is, therefore, narrating false stories. He prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. The applicant/wife, Smt. Mamta Sahu, appeared as applicant Witness No. 1 and marked documents as Ex. A-1C to Ex. A/3C. Ajay Pal appeared as applicant Witness No. 2 and marked document as Ex. P/4C. 7. The respondent/husband, Pravin Bagh, appeared as respondent witness No. 1 and marked documents as Ex. NA-1 to Ex. NA-14. Kapoorchand Bagh appeared as respondent applicant Witness No. 2. 8. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, after perusing the 4 evidence on record, partly allowed the application 7led under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by the applicant/wife and awarded Rs. 2000/- per month to the applicant. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not at all considered the admissions made by the husband/respondent, which ought to have led to a diDerent conclusion than the one reached in the impugned order. Learned Family Court has mechanically shifted the onus on the wife, instead of appreciating that the husband is earning a handsome income and is residing in a major city area. He submits that learned Family Court, in a very mechanical manner, has partly allowed the application 7led by the wife, leading to the passing of the impugned order. The learned Family Court has computed the income of the husband on the basis of a daily labourer’s wages, which is purely imaginary and without any factual basis. He also submits that although the learned Family Court concluded that the wife is living separately with suEcient cause, and that it was the husband and his family members who left her at her parental home without any rhyme or reason, it has nevertheless awarded maintenance of only Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is grossly inadequate. Even after appreciating the fact that the applicant/wife has no means of livelihood, the learned Family Court allowed the application only to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- per month, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and basic human dignity. He also submits that the applicant/wife has been suDering since 2022, and not a single rupee has been paid to her either by way of maintenance or even as a token of love and aDection. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises, and cannot be allowed to stand. The inconsistent pleas advanced by the husband have been completely overlooked, and the core object and legislative intent of 5 Section 125 Cr.P.C. are entirely missing from the reasoning in the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 7led by the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both parties and the current price index, which cannot be said to be on the lower side. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 7nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in7rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek