1 025:CGHC:42401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1034 of 2025 Smt. Triveni Sahu W/o Jaitram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Belaudi, Chowki- Jevra Sirsa, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Jaitram Sahu S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Sahu, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Belaudi, Chowki- Jevra Sirsa, Police Station- Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rudranath Mukherjee, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 and enhance the maintenance amount as Rs. 12000/- per month in favour of applicant, in the interest of justice.” KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant along with her daughter filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court for grant of maintenance, stating therein that marriage of applicant was performed with the non-applicant in the year 1997 and after marriage she went to the house of non-applicant for performing matrimonial obligations and out of their wedlock, two children namely Ravindra and Prachi have been born. It was contended that the applicant is the second wife of non-applicant. After death of his first wife, the non-applicant performed marriage with her. The non-applicant has four children from his first wife. After some time of marriage, the non- applicant used to beat the applicant and misbehaved with the applicant. The non-applicant has badly assaulted with the applicant and ousted her from his house. The applicant made complaint before the Police, upon which, the non- applicant executed an agreement dated 17.01.2021, whereby he agreed to give 90 Dismil land at Village Belodi, House and 15 Dismil land situated at Village Malud Khar, 1.12 acres land at Village Birejhar Khar and cash Rs. 5,00,000/-, but till date the non- applicant has not given the agreed land, house & cash and he has deserted the applicant and living in other house. The applicant is a household lady, whereas the non-applicant is a retired employee of B.S.P. and he is holding 9 acres agricultural lands, thereby earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum and he is also getting pension, despite this, he is not giving single penny to the applicant towards her maintenance, therefore she filed application for grant of maintenance. 3 3. After serving notice, the non-applicant filed reply, whereby denied the allegations, except admitted fact and prayed for dismissal of application. 4. The learned Family Court concerned after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 04.01.2025, whereby, partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., awarding maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of the applicant. However, the Family Court did not make any observation regarding the applicant’s daughter, as she had attained majority and is capable of maintaining herself, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the non-applicant is a retired employee of B.S.P. and he got a lumsum retirement amount of Rs. 28 lakhs.The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is a household lady, whereas the non-applicant is a retired employee of B.S.P. and he is holding 9 acres agricultural lands, thereby earning Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum and he is also getting pension. The learned Family Court has also failed to appreciate that she has no source of income and at present the price of food grains and other daily needs articles are in higher side and therefore the maintenance allowed in favour of applicant to the tune of Rs. 1500/- per month is not sufÏcient for running livelihood of a lady. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant is required proper food, make-up articles, cloths, medical expenses be 4 fulfilled in awarded etc., which cannot maintain of Rs. 1500/- per month. Thus the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad and illegal on all counts and liable to be modified to enhanced suitably. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned, after a detailed consideration of all documents and evidence brought on record, has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Family Court concerned has awarded a maintenance amount of ₹1500/- per month to the applicant/wife. However, the Family Court did not make any observation regarding the applicant’s daughter, as she had attained majority and is capable of maintaining herself, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living, as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the non-applicant and the genuine needs of the applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the lower side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 5 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court while awarding the maintenance amount of Rs. 1500/- per month to the applicant/wife. I am of the considered view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal