1 2025:CGHC:57329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1098 of 2022 Mukesh Verma (Golu) S/o Late Suraj Lal Verma Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Chandan Nagar, Motipur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Chandani Verma (Kalyani) D/o Shri Narsingh Janghel, W/o Mukesh Verma (Golu) Aged About 23 Years R/o Station Road, Near Shiv Mandir Kuwa, Lodhi Para, Raipur, Police Station Ganj, Tahsil And Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Ms. Jyoti Kaushik, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 kindly be pleased to allowed criminal revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal M.C.C. No. 353/2021 or granted maintenance amount may be reduced from 10,000/- to 2000/- per month by modifying of the impugned order dated 19.09.2022, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent 昀椀led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-, stating that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 24.04.2018 according to Hindu rites and that, within two months of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to harassment and cruelty in connection with dowry demands, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the applicant is working as a carpenter earning around Rs. 30,000/- per month, whereas the respondent has no independent source of income. Upon notice, the applicant 昀椀led his reply and denied all allegations. After framing issues and considering the material on record, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 19.09.2022, allowed the respondent’s application and directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record, as the Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is merely a labourer earning about Rs. 6,000/- per month and is residing with his aged mother in a rented house, yet maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been awarded on the higher side. It is contended that the allegation regarding the applicant’s income being Rs. 30,000/- is false and baseless and that the respondent herself is employed in a beauty parlour and earns approximately Rs. 5,000/- per month, enabling her to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the respondent has not produced any cogent evidence to establish the applicant’s alleged higher income, but despite this, the Family Court ignored the applicant’s reply and passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of material facts. Hence, the maintenance awarded is excessive, unsustainable, and liable to be quashed or suitably modi昀椀ed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the respondent 昀椀led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming 4 monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-, asserting that her marriage with the applicant was solemnized on 24.04.2018 according to Hindu rites and that, within two months of marriage, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the applicant and his family members on account of dowry demands, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. She further pleaded that the applicant is employed as a carpenter earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month, while she has no independent source of livelihood. Upon issuance of notice, the applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations, however, after framing issues and evaluating the pleadings, documents, and evidence brought on record, the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the respondent was unable to maintain herself and that the applicant had su昀케cient means to provide maintenance. Accordingly, the learned Family Court, by a well- reasoned order dated 19.09.2022, allowed the respondent’s application and directed the applicant to pay a just and reasonable amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which does not su昀昀er from any illegality or in昀椀rmity. 8. 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 Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 5 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan