1 2025:CGHC:9287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 256 of 2025 Savitri W/o Arvind Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Parri Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Arvind S/o Dileshwar Rajwade Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Basdei (Ward No. 06 Samundarpara ) Out Post Basdei Police Station Tahsil And District - Surajpur (C.G.). --- Respondents For Applicant/wife : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. The applicant/wife has filed this instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, Distt-Surajpur, (CG) in Misc. Criminal Case No.20/2024, whereby non-applicant-husband (respondent herein) 2 was directed to pay sum of Rs.3,500/- to the applicant/wife as maintenance. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the applicant-wife has filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance stating therein that she is legally married wife of non-applicant/respondent (herein) and their marriage was solemnized in the month of 2007 as per the caste, custom prevalent between the parties. Respondent/husband used to work as agriculturist, subsequently he obtained the job in Railway Department and they resided peacefully for further 2-3 years and, thereafter, respondent used to consume the liquor, started ill- treating and assaulting the applicant-wife. Since, out of their wedlock, no issue was born, the family members of the respondent- husband also used to ill-treated her stating that she is involved in the practice of which-craft. In the month of December-2022, the applicant-wife has informed about the said act to her family members and on 17-12-2022 written letter/application to the Out Post Basdei and, thereafter, she is residing in the house of her parents, but she is facing difficulty in livelihood as she has no source of income, whereas the respondent is working as ‘gate-man’ in the Railway Department and also holding agricultural land, thereby earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, despite this, he is not giving single penny towards maintenance to the applicant-wife. The applicant moved an application in the society and a meeting was held on 17-03-2023 but the respondent was not appeared in the said meeting and informed the applicant that he wants to performed 3 the second marriage and, thereafter, applicant filed an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, to which, after serving notice, respondent/non-applicant filed the reply and denied the allegations stating that the applicant-wife is living separately without any reasonable cause, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024 has allowed the application in part and directed the respondent-hushand to pay sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant-wife as maintenance, which is on lower side. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant-wife submits that the applicant is facing economical problems as she has no source of income and being a lady, she is not able to survive herself in present scenario of society, whereas respondent-husband is working in the Railway Department and getting Rs.28,888/- per month as salary and in support thereof applicant has filed the Ex.P-02 pay slip of month of July-2020 before the learned Family Court, yet the learned Family Court has granted only Rs.3,500/- per month, which is not enough for the applicant for her maintenance. Hence, it is prayed that amount of maintenance be suitably enhanced. 4. Perusal of impugned order/judgment would show that learned Family Court in its order/judgment has recorded a finding that respondent-husband is working in the Railway Department and thereby getting Rs.28,800/- per month as salary. 5. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the applicant/wife, particularly the finding 4 recorded by the family Court regarding occupation/service and earning of the respondent-husband while passing the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the amount so granted by family Court cannot be said to be satisfactory as compared to the salary drawn by the respondent, therefore, it would be just and proper to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. Accordingly, respondent-husband is directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the applicant-wife as maintenance. 7. In the result, instant revision petition is allowed in part and impugned order/judgment is modified here to the extent indicated above. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-