1 2025:CGHC:40132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1263 of 2023 Smt. Mahima Singh W/o Pratik Kumar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o – Through - Shri Mukesh Singh Thakur, R/o 933/68, Vikash Vihar Colony, Mahadev Ghaat, Raipura Chowk (Near Krishna Apartment) Police Station Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar, Tehsil And District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Shri Pratik Kumar Singh S/o Shri Anil Kumar Singh Aged About 34 Years R/o Qtr No. E-3, K-2- Vihar, H.T.P.S. Thana And Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, C.G. Adhar No. 4903 3052 6213. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.08.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this revision, when the matter is called for hearing today. 2. Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 3. The present revision has been <led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the enhance the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.08.12 10:59:49 +0530 2 amount of maintenance which is granted by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 819/2023 and awarded a maintenance in sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed before the Family Court, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the applicant has <led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month from the respondent/husband. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent got married on 03.12.2017 at City Vatuka, Jawahar Gate, N.T.P.C., Jamnipali, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), according to the rites and customs as well as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as both the parties are governed by Hindu Law. After marriage, the applicant and the respondent lived happily together for about one week at Korba and thereafter, on 11.12.2017, they went to Pune (Maharashtra) applied for a U.S. visa in January 2018. The applicant was at her maternal home in Raipur (C.G.) on 25.02.2018. Subsequently, she stayed at her in-laws’ house and again on 15.03.2018. Thereafter, the couple, along with the respondent, went to the U.S. for work. The applicant returned to Raipur in September 2019, and from 16.10.2019 to 22.10.2019, she was residing in her in-laws’ house. Meanwhile, the applicant started being taunted by her mother-in-law and father-in-law for bringing insuDcient dowry. They told her she was wearing cheap clothes, made derogatory comparisons to other girls, and mentally harassed her. On 18.02.2022, the respondent went to the U.S. without informing the applicant. On the same day, at around 10:00 p.m., the applicant’s father- in-law called her and stated that the respondent was not willing to live with her and that they too did not wish to keep her as their daughter-in- law. When the applicant went to the non-applicant’s house with her family 3 members, her father-in-law said that the respondent had now shifted to Canada. When asked for the reason, her father-in-law, brother-in-law, and others abused the applicant and her family and asked them to leave. The applicant further pleads that she does not have adequate means for her livelihood. Due to the mental torture, deceit, and psychological harassment by the respondent, she has become physically and mentally weak and has no arrangement to earn an income. 5. The respondent has studied electrical communication engineering and is currently working as a manager in an American company, Comini Chat, earning Rs. 5,14,000/- per month. He also has ancestral property in village Charve, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), from which he earns annual income. The respondent has also purchased a house in Rama World Phase-3, Bilaspur, which is rented out by his father and brother. His father is also an engineer. Thus, the respondent earns approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- per month from various sources. Despite having substantial income, the respondent/husband has shown unwillingness to grant maintenance, taking the plea that he is merely a labourer and not capable of maintaining his wife. During the pendency of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, several opportunities were given to the parties to resolve their dispute, but all attempts at counseling and settlement failed. 6. While deciding the application for grant of maintenance, the learned Family Court framed three questions, all of which were decided in favor of the applicant. However, the amount of maintenance granted, which is only Rs. 20,000, is on the lower side considering the living status and income of the respondent/husband. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court 4 has granted a very nominal amount of maintenance, the same is liable to be increased or enhanced. The living standard of the husband is very high, and considering his standard of living, the amount of maintenance ought to have been granted at a higher rate to the applicant. He submits that granting only Rs. 20,000/- to the wife, along with Rs. 2,000/- towards application <ling, making a total of Rs. 22,000/-, is on the very lower side considering the present price rise and the expensive lifestyle of the general public. He further submits that the respondent has an adequate and stable source of income. The respondent is working as a Manager in an American company, Comini Chat, and his salary is approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- per month. After the cruelty committed by the respondent and harassment for dowry, the wife has been living separately. Furthermore, a written complaint has also been made to the concerned police station in this regard. He also submits that the respondent used to beat the wife daily and misbehave with her. With regard to these incidents, written complaints were lodged with the concerned police station, and the injuries noticed by the police authorities are suDcient to prove that the respondent committed acts of cruelty against his wife. He submits that in day-to-day life, no person can live separately with two minor children within the meagre sum of Rs. 20,000/-. The applicant is a housewife and is unable to earn an income. Further, if she attempts to work, she will be required to leave the children and go outside, which is impractical. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. 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 5 Cr.P.C. <led by the applicant and awarded maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- 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. 10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the <nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in<rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek