1 2025:CGHC:34083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 296 of 2022 1. Noorjahan Khatoon W/o Mohammed Bilal Ansari Aged About 27 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Pratappur, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) 2. Sahiba Ansari D/o Mohammed Bilal Ansari Aged About 3 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Noorjahan Khatoon Wife Of Mohammed Bilal Ansari, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Pratappur, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur, Disrict Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus Mohammed Bilal Ansari S/o Alimuddin Ansari Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Parradand, Mominpura, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.18 18:45:26 +0530 2 Sessions Juge, Pratapur (Surajpur), (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.06/2021, wherein the learned Additional Session Judge has partly allowed the revision and reduced the maintenance in favour of the applicant No. 1 from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month, arising out of the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 57/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratapur, District- Surajpur. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between applicant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnized on 16.01.2013. However, the respondent No.1 was allegedly subjected to dowry demands by her in- laws and was eventually ousted from the matrimonial house on 10.04.2014, while pregnant. She has since been living in her parental house. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the JMFC, Pratappur, seeking maintenance. They claimed that the respondent No.1, a teacher earning Rs. 40,000 per month and holding 5 acres of agricultural land, had not provided any financial support despite having a significant income. The JMFC, Pratappur, awarded maintenance of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month to the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2, respectively, from the date of filing the application. Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2021, the respondent preferred a revision before the learned Additional Session Judge, Pratapur, District – Surajpur, the learned Additional Session Judge has partly allowed the revision and reduced the maintenance in favour of the applicant No. 1 from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. The learned revisional Court has committed grave error of law in reducing the maintenance in respect of 3 applicant No. 1 from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 6000/-. The learned Revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent is working as Teacher, thereby used to get salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month and he is also holding 5 acres agricultural land, though the applicants have no source of income. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the applicant No. 1 is required food, cloths, make-up articles. The learned revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the maintenance amount of Rs. 6000/- is not sufficient for livelihood of a lady in present scenario of society. The finding recorded by the revisional Court are baseless, perverse and erroneous, therefore the same is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the trial 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. From the perusal of impugned order, it transpires the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 in favour of the applicants and against the respondent for payment of maintenance amount from the date of submission of the application, which, as per the above stated principle of the Hon'ble Court, appears to be oppressive and unbearable for the respondent as per the salary he receives, because in the capacity of a teacher, apart from spending on himself, the respondent also has to spend on the care and treatment of his 65-year-old paralyzed mother, in which it is natural for a major part of the salary to be spent. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order 4 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 is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti