1 2025:CGHC:57322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1185 of 2022 Smt. Sushma Devi W/o Buddheshwar Ram Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Mission Hospital, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Buddheswar Ram S/o Somra Ram Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Assistant Teacher, Address- Govt. Primary School Bhaismunda, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Through C.E.O. O昀케ce, Balrampur, Tahsil And District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this criminal revision and modify ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 10:39:59 +0530 2 /enhance impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the learned family Court Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 213/2016 and also may kindly be granted maintenance amount sought by the applicant in application under section 127 of Cr.P.C. for seeking granting maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the applicant had 昀椀led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of maintenance, and it is an admitted fact that the applicant and the respondent had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals. Since then, the applicant and the respondent were living together peacefully as husband and wife. The brief facts of the application are that the applicant and the respondent initially shared a good relationship. However, after some time of marriage, the respondent started mentally harassing and torturing the applicant on the ground of insu昀케cient dowry. The respondent also used 昀椀lthy language and repeatedly assaulted (marpeet) the applicant. Counseling for settlement of their dispute was conducted by the Women Adviser Centre, but the respondent did not adhere to the compromise terms and continued to misbehave. Due to this, the applicant is now residing in a rented house and has no source of income. The applicant’s expenses for survival are very high, and she is also su昀昀ering from various diseases for which she is undergoing continuous treatment. The applicant is unable to maintain herself and her family members. The respondent is working as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department and earns a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month. Hence, the applicant 昀椀led an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent. 3 4. The respondent appeared before the learned Family Court and denied the contentions raised by the applicant. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, granted a very meagre maintenance amount of Rs. 3,250/- to the applicant without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The said amount is inadequate, and the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law. 5. Being aggrieved by the inadequate maintenance awarded vide order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the learned Family Court, the applicant 昀椀led an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 213/2016 seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 3,250/- to Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), vide its order dated 05.04.2022, enhanced the maintenance amount to only Rs. 3,750/-, which is still inadequate. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the evidence and documents submitted by the applicant. He also submits that the applicant left her matrimonial house due to the cruelty committed by the respondent. The respondent thereafter solemnized a second marriage, due to which the applicant su昀昀ered both mentally and physically. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,250/- is extremely insu昀케cient for the applicant’s livelihood. Despite this, while passing the impugned order, the Court enhanced the maintenance by only Rs. 500/-, which is unjust, and therefore the maintenance amount is liable to be further enhanced. He further submits that the applicant has no means or source of income 4 and does not have any support from anyone. Hence, the maintenance amount granted is liable to be enhanced. The learned Family Court overlooked the fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that they have a minor daughter. The respondent is employed in the Education Department and is drawing a salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent is fully capable of paying the maintenance amount sought by the applicant. He also submits that considering the above circumstances, the 昀椀nancial condition of the respondent is strong, and therefore he is fully capable of paying the enhanced maintenance amount sought in the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant has no means and no source of income to sustain herself. He further submits that the respondent has suppressed material facts, whereas the applicant has presented the true facts. Despite this, the learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the material on record, granted a very meagre maintenance amount, which is inadequate. Hence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced. He submits that the respondent has never made any e昀昀ort to reside with the applicant, whereas the applicant attempted to live with the respondent at the matrimonial home. However, the respondent continuously tortured and harassed the applicant without any reason and also contracted a second marriage with another woman. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayers and submission made by learned counsel, for the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family 5 Court, after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties, has partly allowed the application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. 昀椀led by the applicant and has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 3,250/- to Rs. 3,750/-. The Court has done so after observing the income, and the social and economic status of both parties, as well as the current price index. The amount awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side. 11. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties 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. 13. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek