1 2025:CGHC:29525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 181 of 2018 Smt. Shanti Panda W/o Shri Antaryami Panda, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Post Salhetarai, Police Station Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Antaryami Panda S/o Jagdish Panda Aged About 65 Years R/o. Post Salhetarai, Police Station Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/wife being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.40/2016, whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and directed the respondent/husband to pay of Rs. 2,000/- per month to PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.02 13:12:52 +0530 2 the applicant as maintenance. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Mahasamund stating therein that the marriage of the parties took place in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals in the year 1980 and from their wedlock they were blessed with two children. It was further submitted that after about 19 years of the marriage the respondent started harassing the applicant on trivial issues and subsequently on 30.10.2011 the applicant and her children were ousted by the respondent. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that the respondent is receiving monthly pension of Rs. 21,400/- and also having Rs. 1 lack per year as agricultural income. The respondent has admitted the relationship and had not denied the income but even then the learned Family Court had awarded only Rs. 2,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance to applicant which is not even sufficient for getting two times food in a day. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/wife submits that the learned Family Court committed error in awarding very meager amount towards maintenance to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court have not considered the present price index for the survival of the applicant and also for the medical expenses per month which she have to incur looking to her age. The learned Family Court had also failed to consider that it is the prime duty of the husband i.e. respondent to maintain the wife in all situation and circumstances according to his own status. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the monthly pension of the respondent is about Rs. 21,400/- per month which was not denied by the respondent and therefore the amount 3 awarded by the learned Family Court is towards lower side. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the applicant/wife is living separately from the respondent/husband due to sufficient and reasonable reasons. The applicant is unable to maintain herself. Despite being a person with sufficient income, the respondent is being negligent in maintaining the applicant. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is accepted and considering the economic and social conditions of both the parties and the rising inflation, the respondent is ordered to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of order. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 8. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and 4 is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti