1 2025:CGHC:36845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 209 of 2024 Smt. Pinki Sharma W/o Shri Rinku Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Sai Nagar, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Shri Rinku Sharma S/o Jagat Narayan Sharma Aged About 32 Years Present Address- MIG-1 / 1719, World Bank Colony, Kurud, District- Durg, C.G., Permanent Address- MIG 1/6, Aditya Nagar, Durg, Ananda Engineering, Near Rukmani Dharamkata, Transport Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the maintenance amount awarded vide order dated 06.01.2024, (annexure A/1) by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) passed in MCC No. 517/2018, be quashed and set-aside. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.29 19:34:51 +0530 2 pass any other order as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the present applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 23.04.2017 at Raipur (C.G.) according to Hindu rites and rituals. Soon after the marriage, the applicant’s sister-in-law started asking inappropriate questions regarding her private and intimate moments. When she informed the respondent (her husband) about the same, he began to use abusive language and subjected her to physical violence. Further, she was stopped by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from entering the kitchen. On 23.05.2017, the applicant’s brother was called by her father-in-law, who stated that one of the applicant’s eyes was smaller, and due to this, the respondent (husband) was not accepting her as his wife. Again, the respondent’s family called the applicant’s family and abused and intimidated them. Thereafter, in August 2017, the applicant was taken to her maternal home by her brother. It is pertinent to mention that despite repeated requests by the applicant’s family, neither the respondent nor any of his family members responded. Instead, the applicant received a divorce notice. A divorce petition has been filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Durg (C.G.) The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent husband. She sought a maintenance amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand), as per the bio-data provided by the respondent’s family. A copy of the application is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P/2. 4. The respondent filed his reply on 14.08.2021. In paragraph 6 of his reply, he admitted that the applicant was sent to her maternal home and that 3 his brother had requested the respondent to allow her to return to the matrimonial home. 5. Vide order dated 11.09.2019, the learned Family Court granted Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance, relying on the documents and evidence available on record. A copy of the relevant portion of the order is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P/4. 6. On 02.01.2018, the respondent husband filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Durg. It is noteworthy that even after this complaint, the applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Court found merit in the applicant’s claim and observed that she had satisfactory reasons for not residing with her husband. The learned Family Court’s findings regarding the respondent’s income were based on the affidavit and statement made by the respondent husband on 22.09.2023. It is important to mention that in Para 31 of the judgment, the learned Family Court itself observed that the respondent husband did not disclose the correct facts regarding his income. Based on his Income Tax Return, his gross annual income was around Rs. 3,67,412/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Twelve only). Despite this, the final maintenance granted was only Rs. 6,000/-. 7. During the pendency of the trial, the learned Family Court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-. However, in the final order, it reduced the maintenance to Rs. 6,000/-, which is even less than the interim amount. This is unreasonable and contrary to law. The impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent deliberately made false submissions regarding his income in order to reduce the amount of maintenance payable to the applicant. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court is perverse, not sustainable in law, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Family Court not only found that the respondent had misrepresented his income, but also concluded that his annual income was Rs. 3,67,412/-. Despite this, the Court awarded only Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance, which is grossly disproportionate. He also submits that learned Family Court had earlier granted Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance, but reduced the same to Rs. 6,000/- in the final order, which is unreasonable, arbitrary, and without justification. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. 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 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and has awarded maintenance of Rs. 6000/- 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. 11. 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. 5 12. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek