1 2025:CGHC:54360 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1353 of 2025 Shrimati Gudiya Rai W/o Viplav Rai Aged About 28 Years R/o Jugani Camp, Talabpara, Churegaon Camp, Jugani, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Viplav Rai S/o Late Vinay Kumar Rai Aged About 38 Years R/o Jugani Camp, Talabpara, Churegaon Camp, Jugani, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) At Present R/o Geedam P.H.D. Colony, In Front Of Police Line, Geedam District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 07 /11/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 No.13/2024, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent No. 1 are husband and wife respectively, and their marriage was solemnized on 12.07.2020 as per the customs and traditions. It was averred in the application for grant of maintenance that after the marriage, the respondent/husband was working as a Manager in a local wine shop and the applicant started residing with the respondent and his family members. It was further averred that the respondent/husband was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and used to assault and treat the applicant with cruelty. That, on 15.10.2021, when the applicant’s brother came to take her, she was beaten mercilessly by the respondent, due to which she suffered severe injuries. It was further stated that on 18.03.2021, when she tried to return to her matrimonial home, she was denied re-entry by the respondent and his family members. It was also averred that the respondent is working as Manager in a local wine shop at Geedam, and owns about 6 acres of irrigated land and two four-wheelers, and therefore the applicant prayed for Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance. After service of notice, the respondent appeared and filed his reply denying the allegations of the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant, without any 3 sufficient cause, is residing separately and has neglected her marital obligations. It was further stated that on 19.02.2022, the applicant left the matrimonial house without the consent of the respondent/husband and thereafter, despite several attempts, refused to return. It was also averred that the applicant is well- educated and working as a Nurse in K.N.H. Hospital, earning about Rs. 35,000/- per month. The learned Court, vide order dated 30.07.2025, held that the applicant had sufficient reasons to reside separately from the respondent and upon consideration of the evidence, recorded a finding that the respondent is earning about Rs. 50,000/- per month, and accordingly awarded Rs. 7,500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in passing the impugned order by failing to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence produced by the applicant, particularly the documents relating to the respondent’s income and assets. The Court failed to consider that the respondent himself admitted that he is working as a Manager, owns two Mahindra vehicles, and possesses ancestral agricultural property, all of which clearly establish that his income is much higher than what has been assessed. He further submits that the learned Court further ignored the settled legal principle that a reasonable percentage of the husband’s income is to be awarded as maintenance so that the wife may live with the same dignity 4 and standard of living as she enjoyed in her matrimonial home. The Court also erred in relying on the bald and unsubstantiated plea that the applicant is employed as a nurse, despite no document being produced by the respondent to prove the same. He also submits that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the respondent deliberately concealed details of his immovable properties and even alienated a residential house worth Rs. 18– 20 crores after initiation of the proceedings, solely to evade his liability. The court further ignored the rising cost of living and day- to-day expenses and did not consider the documents filed by the applicant showing inflation and her need for adequate maintenance. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned court are erroneous, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.7,500/- per month to the applicant, towards maintenance observing the evidence and circumstances, the Family Court held that the applicant-wife had sufficient and justified reasons to live separately, that she was unable to maintain herself, and that the respondent-husband is a person of sufficient means who had 5 deliberately neglected to maintain her. The Court further noted that the husband concealed his true income, owned two expensive vehicles, and failed to produce any proof of limited earnings. Considering the standard of living, the husband’s earning capacity, and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Family Court found that the wife is entitled to maintenance as aforementioned, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil