1 2025:CGHC:38361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 541 of 2023 Kuleshwar Kothle S/o Bartiya Kothle Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Devpuri, Police Station - Tikrapara, Tahsil - Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Usha Kothle W/o Kuleshwar Kothle Aged About 26 Years D/o Supran Tandon, R/o Village Ganoud, Post - Ganoud, Police Station - Rakhi Tahsil - Arang, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh 2. Ku. Kanak Kothle D/o Kuleshwar Kothle Aged About 3 Years Through Natural Guardian Smt. Usha Kothle, (Mother), R/o Village Ganoud, Post - Ganoud, Police Station - Rakhi Tahsil - Arang, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Gouraha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order dated 25.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No. 312/2021 by which the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been 2 allowed and directed the present applicant/husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000/- per month to wife from 07.07.2021 and Rs. 3,000/- per month to daughter, thus, the total amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent wife has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. mainly contending that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and respondent wife on 24.03.2018 and immediately after marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture which has compelled her to leave the matrimonial house and accordingly, she has gone to her paternal house on 16.04.2021 along-with her 3 years old daughter. The applicant is not maintaining the wife and daughter which has necessitated her to file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. It is also the case of the wife that there is 2 acres of land and ancestral house situated at village Bhatgaon from which the applicant husband is getting Rs. 1 Lakh per month and his annual income is Rs. 2,30,000/- which includes salary as he is working as driver and getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The wife has also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance amount. 3. The applicant filed reply to the said application denying the allegations made in the application mainly contending that he was removed from service after COVID-19 Pandemic, therefore, he has worked as daily wages employee and not getting the salary as alleged by the wife and to demonstrate this fact he has filed the statement of the account. The applicant has also put certain allegations against wife in the written statement. It has also been contended that the wife has left the matrimonial house without rhyme 3 and reason, therefore, he has prayed for rejection of the application. 4. The learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 25.03.2023 has allowed the application and granted the maintenance allowance to wife as mentioned above. This order is being assailed by the applicant by filing the criminal revision before this Court mainly contending that the finding recorded by the Family Court that earning of the husband is on a higher side and without any application of mind, material placed on record, as such, suffers from perversity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission would submit that the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record, particularly in paragraph 17 has recorded its finding that there is 2 acres of land situated at village from where the applicant/husband is earning income, therefore there is sufficient source of income and without rhyme and reason he is not maintaining his wife, accordingly, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order directing the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 3,000/- to daughter which is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned order with utmost satisfaction. 7. From perusal of the record of the trial Court, it is quite vivid that the trial Court has not taken into consideration any material to determine the income of husband from 2 acres of land to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh per annum. Even the respondent wife has not filed any document to demonstrate that he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. As such, the 4 determination made by the learned trial Court is on a higher side not on actual basis. Therefore, considering the well settled position of law that the maintenance amount should not be a bonanza, but it should be looking to the cost of living which was followed by the applicant and wife when they live together and it should not be on a higher side. 8. It is well settled position of law that the maintenance allowance should not be bonanza for the wife, but it should be the amount which is sufficient for maintenance of wife as per living standard of her husband. The appellant has given evidence that before Covid-19 pandemic he was running the school bus as driver, but after that he is not doing the work of driver but that is not the reason for declining the maintenance to the wife. It is trite law that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and child despite adverse circumstances unless cogent and sufficient reason is proved by the husband. 9. Considering the basic parameters which is required for determination of quantum of the compensation, I am of the view that the maintenance awarded to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- deserves to be modified by reducing to Rs. 5,000/- and so far as child is concerned, it remained as Rs. 3,000/-. Therefore, the maintenance amount deserves to be modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay the amount of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the wife and Rs. 3,000/- to the daughter, thus total Rs. 8,000/- is payable to the respondents w.e.f. 07.07.2021. 10. It is also directed that if the petitioner has paid maintenance amount as ordered by the family Court to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- regularly, the same shall be adjusted in future amount of maintenance payable 5 to wife and if not paid the same shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month as detailed above to the respondents. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant Criminal Revision is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.10.14 15:03:51 +0530