1 2025:CGHC:60260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1501 of 2025 Smt. Preeti W/o Deepak Rai Aged About 34 Years D/o Rambhau, At Present R/o Village Kodapuri, Police Station And Tehsil Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Deepak Rai S/o Late Ramkumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Malsay Talab Kushalpur, Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur (C.G.), Office Address- Land Record Branch B.T.I. Road (Wrongly Mentioned Bit I Road In Impugned Order) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Manju Naik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 /12/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Criminal Case No.742/2023, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an undisputed fact that the applicant and respondent are legally married, and their marriage was solemnized on 23.02.2023 at Mahamay Mangalam, Sendri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) as per Hindu customs. After marriage, the applicant was allegedly subjected to mental, physical, and financial cruelty, but she continued to stay with the respondent in the hope of maintaining the marriage. The applicant resided at her matrimonial home, where the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law allegedly harassed her and demanded dowry. Due to continuous cruelty and dowry demands, the applicant left the matrimonial house on 19.04.2023. Attempts at settlement through social meetings failed, and no compromise could be reached. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance, stating that the respondent is a government employee posted at the Land Record Branch, B.T.I. Mahasamund, earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent denied the allegations and admitted only a monthly salary of Rs.22,900/-, producing his payslip. Upon hearing both parties, the learned court held that the applicant had sufficient grounds to live separately, and by order dated 06.11.2025, 3 awarded her Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the awarded amount, the applicant has filed the present petition seeking enhancement of monthly maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur deserves modification considering the overall facts of the case. The court granted only Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance, which is extremely inadequate against the applicant’s lawful claim of Rs.15,000/- per month. She further submits that the applicant has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. She had sufficient and justified reasons to live separately due to the cruelty faced at her matrimonial home. Therefore, the learned court ought to have awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance, effective from the date of filing the application (04.10.2023). She also submits that the respondent is earning a salary of Rs.22,353/- per month, and as per settled legal principles, the wife is entitled to an amount ensuring similar living standards. Hence, the maintenance amount is liable to be enhanced, keeping in view the income of the respondent and the applicant’s legitimate needs. 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 Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC filed 4 by the applicant and directed the respondent to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the applicant towards maintenance observing the evidence and findings, it stands established that the applicant had sufficient reasons to live separately, she has no independent source of income, and the respondent is financially capable of maintaining her. Therefore, the Family Court concluded that the applicant is legally entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent 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