1 2025:CGHC:29546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 764 of 2017 Smt. Ramvati W/o Balbhadra, Aged About 50 Years Caste Panika, R/o Ward No. 9, Sarkari Dafai, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Balbhadra S/o Shivprasad, Aged About 56 Years Caste Panika, R/o Ward No. 9, North Jhagrakhand, Paniha Dafai, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station Jhagrakhand, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.03 11:14:02 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court, that order dated 10.04.2017 be quashed and maintenance amount awarded by the Court below may kindly be enhanced, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the applicant seeking grant of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month, alleging that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1976, and out of their wedlock, two daughters, Radha and Shanti, were born, who are now married. The respondent ill-treated the applicant on the ground that no male child was born out of the relationship. The applicant has been living with her mother and sister and somehow managing to survive. She managed to get her daughters married by taking loans. However, she is now about 50 years old and unable to maintain herself. In the year 1982, the respondent started living with Yashoda and deserted the applicant. The respondent is working as a driver in S.E.C.L. and is earning about Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the applicant prayed that maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month be granted to her. 4. In his written statement, the respondent stated that the applicant was kept with him as per Churi Pratha custom, and that he is married to one Yashoda, out of the wedlock with whom he has six children. He further submitted that he has other responsibilities towards them. Therefore, it was prayed that the application filed by 3 the applicant be dismissed. 5. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Family Court granted maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by learned Family Court is bad in law and liable to be set aide. She submits that the amount of maintenance awarded is on the lower side, and it is difficult for the applicant to maintain herself with such a low amount. She further submits that the applicant is an aged woman, unable to earn, and is further suffering from ill health, due to which she is finding it extremely difficult to survive. She also submits that the respondent is receiving a pension, owns a house and other property, is in sound health, and is earning by doing alternative work. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount granted by the learned Family Court may kindly be enhanced to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has partly allowed the application 4 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to the applicant, observing the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be said to be on lower side. 10. Considering the submission 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 learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek