1 2025:CGHC:58419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1147 of 2022 Smt. Savita W/o Suresh Chandra Mahar Aged About 46 Years R/o Plot No. 35, Surya Nagar Sonkar Baadi Urla, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh … Applicant versus Suresh Chandra Mahar S/o Daya Ram Chandrikapure, Aged About 48 Years R/o Quarter No. 451 A, Zone 1, B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision petition setting aside the order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh, Criminal Case No. 225/2016, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and allow the application of the Applicant filed under Section 125 CrPC in full, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 01.05.2015 according to Hindu customs. Both parties are divorcees, and the respondent has two daughters from his first marriage. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month, alleging that after marriage the respondent treated her with cruelty, used abusive language, accused her of illicit relations, forced her to consume liquor, and at times drove her out of the house, compelling her to reside at her parental home. The applicant, a government employee working as a Guard in Indian Railways earning Rs. 45,000/- per month, examined herself and two other witnesses, although the testimony of one witness was not considered as she could not be cross-examined. The respondent contested the application, alleging that the applicant had concealed her previous marriage, is self-earning through employment in various establishments, and filed the application to extract money, claiming that he was misled and defrauded by the applicant’s family. The learned Family Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, allowed the application in part and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month, adjusting any interim maintenance already paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred the present revision petition. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside as it is apparently erroneous both on facts and law. It is submitted that the Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents on record, and in particular, neglected the fact that the Applicant is a less educated housewife with no independent source of income, entirely dependent on her parents. The respondent, being a government servant with a regular income of Rs. 45,000/- per month, cannot escape his legal and social obligation to maintain his wife. It is further submitted that the learned Court assessed the maintenance amount at a lower side without due consideration of the present cost of living, and failed to take into account that the Applicant is residing separately due to the cruelty meted out by the respondent. Considering the living standard of the Applicant, a monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- was reasonable and appropriate, and the Court ought to have directed the respondent to pay the same. 4. 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, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, Durg, correctly passed the impugned order 4 after a careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record. The Applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent, has alleged that after their marriage on 01.05.2015, she was subjected to cruelty, abuse, false accusations of illicit relations, and was at times compelled to leave the matrimonial home, necessitating her residence at her parental house. The respondent, despite being a government employee with a regular income of Rs. 45,000/- per month, failed to provide adequate maintenance to his wife. The Court properly examined the evidence, including the testimony of the applicant and other witnesses, and noted that while one witness could not be cross-examined, the applicant’s claims were substantially supported. The respondent’s contentions regarding concealment of previous marriage and alleged self-earning of the applicant were considered, but the Court rightly found that the applicant is entitled to maintenance as per Section 125 CrPC. By directing the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month, the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction, balancing the evidence, financial capacity of the respondent, and the needs of the applicant, and the order is therefore justified and in accordance with law. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 5 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. 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