1 2025:CGHC:55106 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1371 of 2025 1. Smt. Krishna Sahu W/o Shri Rambabu Sahu D/o Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Ooni, Police Station Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Ku. Mishita Sahu D/o Rambabu Sahu Aged About 9 months Through The Guardian Smt. Krishna Sahu W/o Shri Rambabu Sahu Aged About 27 Yerars R/o Village Ooni, Police Station Sipat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Rambabu Sahu S/o Shri Nandram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Madwa, P.O. Basanpur, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) … Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.11.2025 1. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this criminal revision when the case is called out for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Ayush Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the applicants. 3. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicants with the following prayer: “(a) Kindly, set aside and modify the order dated ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.13 11:52:45 +0530 2 22.09.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Miscellaneous criminal case No. 642/2023 (Annexure A-1) to the extent of quantum of maintenance, and be pleased to enhance the monthly maintenance to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), comprising Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the minor child; b) Kindly, direct that the aforesaid enhanced maintenance shall be payable from the date of application, i.e., 09.08.2023, along with consequential arrears; c) Kindly, pass such other or further orders as may be deemed 昀椀t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2022 in accordance with Hindu rites and customary ceremonies, and thereafter the parties lived together at the respondent’s matrimonial residence. The marital relationship subsists, and one female child was born out of the wedlock on 11.11.2023, who is presently residing in the custody and care of the applicant No.1. Shortly after marriage, the applicant No.1 joined the respondent at the matrimonial home and cohabited with him. However, the marital relationship deteriorated within a brief period owing to persistent domestic discord and conduct attributable to the respondent and his family members, resulting in sustained matrimonial disturbances prejudicial to the applicant’s dignity, safety, and well-being. On 04.08.2022, a serious incident occurred at the matrimonial home, wherein the applicant No. 1 was compelled to ingest a poisonous substance, leading to her admission and treatment at New Korba Hospital, Champa, from 04.08.2022 to 06.08.2022. After her discharge, the applicant No. 1, acting bona 昀椀de and in the interest of preserving the 3 marriage, returned to the matrimonial home. Subsequent to the said incident, the applicant No. 1 initiated criminal proceedings concerning matrimonial cruelty; however, with a bona 昀椀de intent to restore the marriage and secure a stable family environment, she entered into a compromise in the said proceedings and resumed cohabitation pursuant to the settlement recorded before the competent court and a昀케rmed in the National Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023. Despite the applicant’s genuine e昀昀orts to resume matrimonial life, the marital environment again deteriorated, and on 12.07.2023, during her pregnancy, the applicant was subjected to further unlawful conduct and was forcibly expelled from the matrimonial residence. Following this, police reports came to be lodged by both sides in respect of the said occurrence. On 11.11.2023, the applicant No. 1 delivered a female child and has since been residing at her parental home, exclusively bearing the responsibilities of childcare and sustenance, while the respondent has neither resumed cohabitation nor extended any 昀椀nancial assistance towards the applicant No. 1 and the minor child. The applicant No. 1 continues to reside separately for just and su昀케cient cause attributable to the respondent’s conduct, and the learned Family Court has duly recorded a 昀椀nding a昀케rming that the applicant No. 1 was compelled to live apart, the separation being neither voluntary nor without reasonable grounds. 5. The respondent is a regularly employed Security Guard with CSPGCL at the Marwa Plant and earns a 昀椀xed monthly salary, as evidenced by payslips produced before the learned Family Court re昀氀ecting a net take- home income of approximately Rs. 35,890/- per month. No material exists to suggest that he has any legal dependents other than the applicant No.1 and the minor child. In view of the continued neglect and absence of 昀椀nancial support, the applicant No. 1 instituted proceedings 4 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 09.08.2023, seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. The respondent entered appearance and 昀椀led his written objections disputing liability and alleging that the applicant No.1 had left the matrimonial residence without su昀케cient cause. 6. During the proceedings, the applicant entered the witness box, supported her pleadings on oath, and produced documentary records, including medical papers, police complaints, and salary documents. The respondent, in his deposition, admitted the marital relationship, the birth of the minor child, and his continued employment, and the cross- examination of the applicant No. 01 did not dislodge the core factual narrative regarding cruelty and compelled separation. 7. By judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 642/2023, the learned Family Court held that the applicants had su昀케cient cause to reside separately and that the respondent had adequate means to maintain her, yet awarded only Rs. 3,500/- per month to the applicant No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to the minor child, aggregating to Rs. 4,000/- per month, without due consideration of the respondent’s earning capacity and the needs of the applicant No. 1 and the infant child. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is bad, illegal, and contrary to law, and therefore, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Family Court, having conclusively recorded 昀椀ndings that the applicant No. 1 was compelled to reside separately for just and su昀케cient cause, and further that the respondent possesses adequate earning capacity arising out of regular employment, has nonetheless awarded a maintenance amount bearing no rational nexus to such 5 foundational 昀椀ndings, thereby rendering the relief illusory and contrary to the purpose and object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that the respondent’s regular public employment and proven monthly earnings, as evidenced by the salary documents on record, were duly acknowledged by the learned Family Court; yet, the maintenance amount was quanti昀椀ed without any judicial evaluation of the respondent’s income vis-à-vis the subsistence requirements of the applicant No. 1 and the minor child, resulting in an arbitrary exercise of discretion unsupported by the evidentiary record. He further submits that the respondent’s admitted net salary, the learned Family Court has awarded maintenance amounting to approximately eleven percent of such income, which is manifestly inconsistent with the settled principle that ordinarily up to twenty-昀椀ve percent of net earnings constitutes a fair benchmark in determining spousal and child maintenance, and the deviation from such guiding standard has been e昀昀ected without recording any special or exceptional reasons. He also submits that the learned Family Court has failed to duly appreciate the legitimate needs of the applicant No. 1, who has been compelled to live separately, and the essential requirements of a newborn child under her exclusive care, thereby 昀椀xing an amount that is insu昀케cient to secure a reasonable standard of maintenance and contrary to the welfare-centric mandate of the law governing support to a deserted wife and infant. The applicant No. 1, burdened with the sole responsibility of nurturing an infant child and compelled to pursue litigation for subsistence, was entitled to an award commensurate with basic living expenses, medical and nutritional needs, and childcare obligations; however, the quantum determined by the learned Family Court does not meet even the minimum threshold necessary to sustain a digni昀椀ed standard of living consistent with the 6 statutory intent. He submits that learned Family Court has exercised jurisdiction in a manner that is arbitrary and unsupported by cogent reasoning, having 昀椀xed the quantum of maintenance without undertaking a structured assessment of essential expenses, earning capacity, social status of the parties, and prevailing in昀氀ationary considerations, thereby resulting in an award that lacks judicial justi昀椀cation and defeats the very purpose of the provision. The impugned determination overlooks the welfare-oriented and protective character of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are designed to ensure immediate and meaningful sustenance to a wife and child unable to maintain themselves, and the nominal award granted frustrates the remedial purpose of the statute and undermines the very jurisdiction exercised. He submits that the entitlement to maintenance in the facts of the present case accrues from the date of application, and the applicants are is in law entitled to arrears from 09.08.2023; however, the quantum 昀椀xed being inadequate, the applicant seek enhancement with consequential arrears from the said date, in consonance with the settled position that maintenance orders ordinarily relate back to the initiation of proceedings unless recorded otherwise for valid reasons. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the applicants and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3500/- to the applicant No. 01 and Rs. 500/- to the applicant No. 2, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and 7 current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek