1 2025:CGHC:34650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 184 of 2023 Suraj Kumar Ravi S/o Shri Dhansai Aged About 26 Years Ocupation - Service (Contract Lecturer), R/o Village Satpata, P.S. - Vishrampur, Tahsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Rambha Ravi W/o Suraj Kumar Ravi (D/o Balram Ravi) Aged About 22 Years Occupation- House Wife, Caste - Harijan, R/o Village Satpata, Ps - Vishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Presently At Village Tendua, Post Ranai, P.S. Patna, Teh. Baikunthpur Dist. - Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 2 1.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh, Camp Baikunthpur, District – Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.19/2021, whereby the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the learned Family Court for grant of the maintenance amount which has been partly allowed with direction to the applicant to pay amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.24 11:01:20 +0530 2 respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹10,000/- from the applicant. She alleged that after about 3-4 months of marriage, the applicant and his family began harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. They claimed that the applicant, being well-educated, would have received a higher dowry had he married someone else. The applicant was also taunted for being less educated and was pressured to ask her parents for a four-wheeler. Upon non-fulfillment of these demands, she was subjected to physical and mental abuse. In October-November 2020, she was assaulted, and when she informed her parents, her father and community members visited the non-applicant’s residence to resolve the matter. However, the demands persisted. She was subjected to further cruelty, including an attempt to set her on fire by pouring kerosene. She managed to escape and inform her parents. Subsequently, when her father came to take her home, she was forcefully expelled from the matrimonial house. Since 05.01.2020, she has been living with her father. Being physically weak and financially dependent, she sought ₹10,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent, she claimed, is employed as a Lecturer on contract at Surajpur College with a salary of ₹45,000/- per month and owns ancestral land. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared and filed a reply denying all allegations. He denied any abuse or ill-treatment and asserted that she left the matrimonial home without just cause and filed false complaints against him. He further claimed to be a Guest Lecturer earning only ₹10,000/- per month and prayed for dismissal of the maintenance application. After considering the submissions of both parties, the trial Court partially allowed the application and granted ₹5,000/- per month as 3 maintenance to the applicant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Family Court with gross illegality. In case at hand, the Family Court ignoring specific plea of applicant that he is jobless due to act of respondent wife and is a member of Below Poverty Line, awarded excessive amount as maintenance which is badly affecting living condition of applicant being jobless. The learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the applicant has neither refuse nor neglected to maintain respondent. It is the respondent-wife who refused to live with the applicant without sufficient reason making her dis entitle for grant of maintenance as per provisions of Section 125 (4) of CrPC. The respondent-wife failed to establish that she is residing separately from the applicant with sufficient cause and she is unable to maintain herself. In fact, applicant is jobless and is dependent on his parents for his livelihood. The Family Court failed to see that applicant does not own any property and he has no source of income. The maintenance amount awarded is too excessive to be sustained in the facts of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the applicant is an educated person who has worked as a Guest Lecturer in Durg and Surajpur, which indicates that he is a person with sufficient means. The respondent is his legally wedded wife, and he is fully responsible for her maintenance. Considering the social status and standard of living of the parties, it appears appropriate to award the respondent a maintenance amount of ₹5,000/- per month from the applicant. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same 4 warranting no interference by this Court. 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti